FIDES ET LIBERTAS 2 0 0 0

The Journal of

the International

Religious Liberty

Association

FIDES ET LIBERTAS 2 0 0 0

The Journal o f the International Religious Liberty Association

International Religious Liberty Association 12501 Old Columbia Pike Silver Spring, Maryland 20904-6600, United States of America Phone 301.680.6680 Fax 301.680.6695 Email [email protected] Web site www.IRLA.org International Religious Liberty Association

OFFICERS

Bert B. Beach (U.S.A.), President 2000 Matthew A. Bediako (Ghana), Gunnar Staalsett (Norway), Denton Lotz (U.S.A.), Robert W. Nixon (U.S.A.), Leo S. Ranzolin (Brazil, U.S.A.), Vice Presidents John Graz (France, Switzerland), Secretary General Richard Lee Fenn (U.S.A.), Deputy Secretary General Donald E. Robinson (U.S.A.), Treasurer Rajmund Dabrowski (Poland), Director of Communication Jonathan Gallagher (U.K.), News Director and Webmaster Mitchell A. Tyner (U.S.A.), Legal Counsel Marilyn Riley (U.S.A.), Milind Lazarus Borge (U.S.A.), Staff

BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Bert B. Beach (U.S.A.), Chair 2000 Matthew A. Bediako (Ghana), Gunnar Staalsett (Norway), Denton Lotz (U.S.A.), Robert W. Nixon (U.S.A.), Leo S. Ranzolin (Brazil, U.S.A.), Vice Chairs John Graz (France, Switzerland), Secretary General Richard Lee Fenn (U.S.A.), Deputy Secretary General Siloe Joao de Almeida (Brazil), Lee Boothby (U.S.A.), Reinder Bruinsma (Netherlands), Ray L. Coombe (Australia), Rajmund Dabrowski (Poland), W. Cole Durham (U.S.A.), Clarence E. Hodges (U.S.A.), Eugene Hsu (China), Anatoly Krasikov (Russia), Victor P. Krushenitsky (Russia), Roland Minnerath (France), Mario Nino (U.S.A.), Jan Paulsen (Norway), Donald E. Robinson (U.S.A.)

INTERNATIONAL REPRESENTATIVES

Africa-Indian Ocean Region: Jean Emmanuel Nlo Nlo (Abidjan, Cote d’Ivoire). East Africa Region: George C. Mwansa (Nairobi, Kenya). Euro-Africa Region: Maurice Verfaillie (Bern, Switzerland). Euro-Asia Region: Victor P. Krushenitsky (Moscow, Russia). Inter-American Region: Mario Nino (Coral Gables, Florida, U.S.A.). North American Region: Clarence E. Hodges (Silver Spring, Maryland, U.S.A.). Northern Asia-Pacific Region: Tadaomi Shinmyo (Koyang, South Korea). South American Region: Siloe Joao de Almeida (Brasilia, Brazil). South Pacific Region: Ray L. Coombe (Wahroonga, New South Wales, Australia). Southern Africa Region: Velile S. Wakaba (Bloemfontein, Free State, South Africa). Southern Asia Region: Justus Devadas (Hosur, Tamil Nadu, India). Southern Asia-Pacific Region: Hiskia I. Missah (Silang, Cavite, Philippines). Trans- European Region: Reinder Bruinsma (St. Albans, Hertfordshire, United Kingdom). Declaration of Principles

We believe that religious liberty is a God-given right.

We believe that legislation and other governmental acts which unite church and state are contrary to the best interests of both institutions and are potentially prejudicial to human rights, and hold that it is best exercised where separation is maintained between church and state.

We believe that government is divinely ordained to support and protect citi­ zens in their enjoyment of natural rights, and to rule in civil affairs; and that in so doing, government warrants respectful obedience and willing support.

We believe in the natural and inalienable right of freedom of conscience—to have or not to have a religion; to adopt the religion or belief of one’s choice; to change religious belief according to conscience; to manifest one’s religion indi­ vidually or in community with others, in worship, observance, practice, promulga­ tion and teaching-subject only to respect for the equivalent rights of others.

We believe that religious liberty includes also the freedom to establish and operate appropriate charitable or educational institutions, to solicit or receive vol­ untary financial contributions, to observe days of rest and celebrate holidays in ac­ cordance with the precepts of one’s religion, and to maintain communication with fellow believers at national and international levels.

We believe that religious liberty and the elimination of intolerance and dis­ crimination based on religion or belief are essential to promote understanding, peace and friendship among people.

We believe that citizens should use lawful and honorable means to prevent the reduction of religious liberty, so that all may enjoy its inestimable blessing.

We believe that the spirit of true religious liberty is epitomized in the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have others do unto you. Statement of Purposes

The purposes of the International Religious Liberty Association are universal and nonsectarian.

(1) To disseminate the principles of religious liberty throughout the world.

(2) To defend and safeguard the right of all people to worship, to adopt a religion or belief of their choice, to manifest their religious convictions in obser­ vance, promulgation, and teaching, subject only to the respect for the equivalent rights of others.

(3) To support the right of religious organizations to operate in every country by their establishing and owning charitable or educational institutions.

(4) To organize local, national, and regeional chapters, and to conduct semi­ nars, symposiums, conferences, and congresses.

Mission Statement

The mission of the International Religious Liberty Association is to defend, protect, and promote religious liberty for all people everywhere. FIDES ET LIBERTAS The Journal of the International Religious Liberty Association

12501 Old Columbia Pike Silver Spring, Maryland 20904-6600, U.S.A. Fax 301.680.6695 www.IRLA.org

John Graz, Publisher Phone 301.680.6680 E-mail [email protected]

Richard Lee Fenn, Editor Phone 503.659.1020 E-mail 104474.2451 @CompuServe.com

EDITORIAL COMMITTEE Robert W. Nixon, Chair John Graz, Richard Lee Fenn, Roy, Adams, Bert B. Beach, Rajmund Dabrowski, Jonathan Gallagher, Clarence E. Hodges Angel Rodriguez, Mitchell A. Tyner

Statements of fact in this issue of FIDES ET LIBERTAS are those of the authors as they understand the facts. The views expressed by the authors are their own and do not necessar­ ily represent the International Religious Liberty Association. Copyright © 2000 International Religious Liberty Association. All rights reserved. Printed at the Review and Herald Publishing Association, Hagerstown, Maryland, U.S.A. Price US$5. FIDES ET LIBERTAS The Journal of the International Religious Liberty Association 2000 Contents John Graz: Looking Back, Looking Ahead...... 10

John Witte, Jr.: A Primer on the Rights and Wrongs of Proselytism ...... 12

Jose Maria Haro Sabater: Constitutions and Proselytism ...... 18

Sharon Linzey: Multiculturalism and M ission...... 25

Natan Lemer: Proselytism and Its Limitations in Israel ...... 32

Roland Minnerath: An Ethical / Catholic Perspective of Proselytism ...... 42

Jose Camilo Cardoso: Latin American Perspectives on Religious Liberty: Pluralism and Proselytism ...... 52

Gerhard Robbers: Proselytism in European Union Law ...... 64

Agustin Motilla: Proselytism and Religious Freedom in Spanish L aw ...... 69

Vladimir Ryakhovsky: Religious Freedom in Russia: The Necessity for Stability...... 78

Mitchell A. Tyner: Legal Provisions for Proselytism in the United States ...... 82

Jonathan Bonk: Missionary Activities: Minimizing Adverse Reactions Without Sacrificing Rights to Manifestation ...... 89 Special Section I International Religious Liberty Association: Guiding Principles for the Responsible Dissemination of Religion or Belief . . .96

Urban Gibson: Disestablishment in Sweden: A Reflection on the Development of the Relationship Between Church and State...... 99

Manmohan Singh: The Rising Star of Religious Freedom: A Fundamental Right in the 21 st Century ...... 106

A. K. Merchant: Religious Liberty and the Third Millennium: A Baha’i View of the Turning Point for All N ations...... I l l

Valson Thampu: A Christian Perspective of Religious Freedom ...... 116

Swami Gokulananda: A Hindu Response to Violence and Intolerance...... 120

Ardeshri M. Sethna: The Sacred Fire: A Zoroastrian Response to Conflict and V iolence...... 123

Special Section II General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists Department of Public Affairs and Religious Liberty: Religious Freedom World Report 2000 ...... 128

Richard Lee Fenn: The First Word and the L ast...... 164 Looking Back, Looking Ahead

John Graz

Secretary General International Religious Liberty Association

Significant steps taken by the International Religious Liberty Association during recent years have served to increase activity and visibility. In cooperation with the Hungarian government, our regional chapter in Europe sponsored an international symposium in Budapest in 1997. Later that year we convened the IRLA’s Fourth World Congress in Rio de Janeiro. These two events opened many doors. We were encouraged to continue. All of our national and regional chapters celebrated the fiftieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1998 with various commemorative programs. The one here at our world headquarters near Washington featured Ambassador Robert Seiple, Dr. David Little, and religious freedom attorney Karen Lord from the U.S. Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe. And 1998 also saw the fulfillment of an IRLA dream: Our an­ nual journal, Fides et Libertas, was first published. For his excellent work as editor, I thank my friend and colleague, Richard Lee Fenn. Last year— 1999—the IRLA’s Conference of Experts com­ menced a major study of proselytism and religious freedom. The re­ sult: In January 2000 the IRLA issued a major document detailing guiding principles on this important issue. I am happy to report our statement has been well-received by religious freedom thought-and- action leaders in Washington, New York, and elsewhere. The India chapter of the IRLA, ably led by Justus Devadas, or­ ganized and conducted a World Conference on Religious Freedom in November 1999. (In our parlance, a “world conference” is only a step or two below a “world congress.”) Believe me when I say this meeting, held in New Delhi’s fine Meridien Hotel, was superb in every respect. By the end of 1999 our website was up and running. Access it at www.IRLA.org. A regional conference held in Cameroon earlier this year opened Africa’s Francophone nations to the work of the IRLA. FID ES ET In cooperation with Andrews University in Berrien Springs, LIBERTAS Michigan, U.S.A., the IRLA sponsored an enriching symposium 2000 on Religious Freedom After Auschwitz, a consideration of Judeo-

10 Christian perspectives on religious liberty. And AU recently voted to establish an on-campus international center for church-state rela­ tions in which the IRLA expects to play a significant role. Meanwhile, the IRLA has maintained its NGO recognition with the United Nations Department of Public Information. Our application for consultative status with the UN Economic and Social Council should be granted early in 2001. While I am gratified by all the IRLA has achieved in recent years, I must remain humbly modest because the task ahead looms large. On the schedule for 2001 is an international symposium in Bermuda (March 15-18) and an international conference in South America (November 27-29 in Lima). The IRLA will conduct its Fifth World Congress in Manila June 14-18, 2002. And beyond? Yes, we are already planning several sympo­ siums, an international training seminar for 2003, and another world conference in 2004. Religious freedom is indeed an issue ever increasing in impor­ tance and sensitivity. New waves of persecution have violated the very principle of religious freedom. How shall we respond? I invite your support-spiritual as well as material-as the International Religious Liberty Association continues “to defend, protect, and promote religious liberty for all people everywhere.”

FID ES ET LIBERTAS 2000

11 A Primer on the Rights and Wrongs of Proselytism

John Witte, Jr.

Jonas Robitscher Professor of Law and Ethics Director, Law and Religion Program Emory University Atlanta, Georgia, U.S.A.

The problem of proselytism is one of the great ironies of the democratic revolution of the modern world. In the last third of the 20th century, more than 30 new democracies were bom around the world. More than 150 major new national, regional, and interna­ tional instruments on religious liberty were forged-many replete with generous protections of liberty of conscience and freedom of religious exercise, guarantees of religious pluralism, equality, and non-discrimination, and several other special protections and enti­ tlements for religious individuals and religious groups.1 This modern democratic revolution has helped to catalyze a great awakening of religion around the globe. In regions newly committed to democracy and human rights, ancient faiths-once driven underground by autocratic and colonial oppressors-have sprung forth with new vigor. In the former Soviet bloc, for exam­ ple, numerous Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, Jewish, Muslim, and other faith communities have been awakened, alongside a host of exotic goddess, naturalist, and personality cults. In post-colonial and post-revolutionary Africa, these same mainline religious groups have come to flourish in numerous conventional and encul- turated forms, alongside an array of traditional groups. In Latin America, the democratic revolution has not only transformed long­ standing Catholic and mainline Protestant communities, but also triggered the explosion of numerous new Evangelical, Pentecostal, and Traditional movements.2 Many parts of the world have seen the prodigious rise of sundry new or newly minted faiths, some wielding ample material, political, and media power. Religion today has become, in Susanne Rudolph’s terms, the latest impor­ tant “transnational variable.”3 This same democratic revolution, however, has helped to trig­ FID ES ET ger a new war for souls between local and foreign religious groups. LIBERTAS With the political transformations of Russia and Eastern Europe, 2000 and parts of sub-Saharan Africa and of Latin America, foreign reli-

12 gious groups were granted rights to enter these regions for the first time in decades. In the 1980s and 1990s, these foreign groups came in increasing numbers to preach their faiths, to offer their services, to convert new souls. Initially, local religious groups—Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant, Sunni, Shi’ite, and Traditional alike—wel­ comed these foreigners. Today, they have come increasingly to re­ sent these foreign religions, particularly those from North America and Western Europe which assume a democratic human rights ethic. Local religious groups resent the participation in the market­ place of religious ideas that democracy assumes. They resent the toxic waves of materialism and individualism that democracy in­ flicts. They resent the massive expansion of religious pluralism that democracy encourages. They resent the extravagant forms of reli­ gious speech, press, and assembly that democracy protects. A new war for souls has thus broken out in many of the newly democratizing nations of the world: a fight to reclaim the tradi­ tional souls of these new societies and a fight to retain adherents to traditional faiths, cultures, and identities. Beneath shiny constitu­ tional veneers of religious freedom for all and unqualified ratifica­ tion of international human rights instruments, several countries of late have passed firm new anti-proselytism laws, adopted cult registration requirements, tightened visa controls, and placed vari­ ous discriminatory restrictions on new or newly arrived religions. Hence the modem problems of proselytism: How does the state balance one community’s right to exercise and expand its faith against another person’s or community’s right to be left alone to its own traditions? How does the state protect the juxtaposed rights claims of majority and minority religions, or of foreign and indigenous religions? How does the state craft a general rule to govern Christians who have easy conversion into and out of the faith; Jews who have difficult conversion into and out of the faith; Muslims who have easy conversion into the faith, but allow for no conversion out of it; among many other views of conversion? These are not new questions. They confronted the drafters of the international bill of rights from the very beginning. But some of the compromises of 1948 and 1966 have today begun to betray their limitations. On the issue of conversion or change of religion, the major in­ ternational human rights instruments largely accept the religious vol­ untarism common among libertarian and Western Christian groups. Article 18 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights in­

cluded an unequivocal guarantee, despite the objections of some FID ES ET Muslim delegations and non-governmental organizations: “Everyone LIBERTAS has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion; this 2000

13 right includes the right to change his religion or belief. ...” (italics supplied). Article 18 of the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, whose preparation was more highly contested on this issue, became a bit more tentative: “This right shall include the right to have or adopt a religion or belief of his choice....” (ital­ ics supplied). The 1981 United Nations Declaration on Intolerance and Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief repeated this more tentative language. But the dispute over the right to conversion con­ tributed greatly to the long delay in the production of this declara­ tion, and to the number of dissenters to it. Today, the issue of religious conversion has become more divisive than ever, in legal and theological circles.4 On the issue of proselytism and its regulation, the international instruments provide somewhat more nuanced direction. Article 18 of the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights protects a person’s “freedom, individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice, and teaching” (italics supplied). But the same article allows such manifestation of religion to be subject to limitations that “are prescribed by law and are necessary to pro­ tect public safety, order, health, or morals, or the fundamental rights of others.” It prohibits outright any “coercion” that would impair another’s right “to have or adopt a religion or belief of [his or her] choice.” It also requires state parties and individuals to have “respect for the liberty of parents ... to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with [the parents’] convictions”—a provision underscored and amplified in more re­ cent instruments and cases on the rights of parents and children. Similarly, Article 19 of the 1966 ICCPR protects the 'freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas o f all kinds [italics supplied], regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing, or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.” But Article 19, too, allows legal restrictions that are nec­ essary for “respect of the rights and reputation of others; for the protection of national security or of public order (ordre publique) or of public health or morals.” As a further limitation on the rights of religion and (religious) expression guaranteed in Articles 18 and 19, Article 26 of the ICCPR prohibits any discrimination on grounds of religion. And Article 27 guarantees to religious minori­ ties “the right to enjoy their own culture” and “to profess and prac­ tice their own religion.”5

FID ES ET The literal language of the mandatory 1966 ICCPR (and its LIBERTAS amplification in more recent instruments and cases) certainly pro­ 2000 tects the general right to proselytize—understood as the right to

14 “manifest,” “teach,” “express,” and “impart” religious ideas for the sake, among other things, of seeking the conversion of another. The covenant provides no protection for coercive proselytism; at minimum, this bars physical or material manipulation of the would-be convert and, in some contexts, even more subtle forms of deception, enticement, and inducement to convert.6 The covenant also casts serious suspicion on any proselytism among children or among adherents to minority religions. But, outside of these con­ texts, the religious expression inherent in proselytism is no more suspect than political, economic, artistic, or other forms of expres­ sion, and, at minimum, should have the same rights. Such rights to religion and religious expression are, of course, not absolute. The 1966 ICCPR and its progeny allow for legal pro­ tections of “public safety, order, health, or morals,” “national secu­ rity” and “the rights and reputation of others,” particularly minors and minorities. But all such legal restrictions on religious expres­ sion must always be imposed without discrimination against any re­ ligion and with due regard for the general mandates of “necessity and proportionality”—the rough international analogues to the “compelling state interest” and “least restrictive alternative” prongs of the strict scrutiny test of American constitutional law. General “time, place, and manner” restrictions on all proselytizers, applied without discrimination against any religion, might thus well be apt. But categorical criminal bans on proselytism, or patently discrimi­ natory licensing or registration provisions, are prima facie a viola­ tion of the religious rights of the proselytizer—as has been clear in the United States since Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940) and in the European community since Kokkinakis v. Greece (1993). To my mind, the preferred solution to the modem problem of proselytism is not so much further state restriction as further self- restraint on the part of both local and foreign religious groups. Again, the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provides some useful cues. Article 27 of the ICCPR reminds us of the special right of local religious groups, particularly minorities, “to enjoy their own culture, and to profess and practice their own religion.” Such lan­ guage might well empower and encourage vulnerable minority tra­ ditions to seek protection from aggressive and insensitive proselytism by missionary mavericks and “drive-by” crusaders who have emerged with alacrity in the past two decades. It might even have supported a moratorium on proselytism for a few years in places like Russia so that local religions, even the majority FID ES ET Russian Orthodox Church, had some time to recover from nearly a LIBERTAS century of harsh oppression that destroyed most of its clergy, semi­ 2000

15 naries, monasteries, literature, and icons. But Article 27 cannot permanently insulate local religious groups from interaction with other religions. No religious and cultural tradition can remain frozen. For local traditions to seek blanket protections against for­ eign proselytism, even while inevitably interacting with other di­ mensions of foreign cultures, is ultimately a self-defeating policy. It stands in sharp contrast to cardinal human rights principles of openness, development, and choice. Even more, it belies the very meaning of being a religious tradition. As Jaroslav Pelikan reminds us: “Tradition is the living faith of the dead; traditionalism is the dead faith of the living.”7 Article 19 of the ICCPR further reminds us that the right to expression, including religious expression, carries with it “special duties and responsibilities.” One such duty, it would seem, is to re­ spect the religious dignity and autonomy of the other, and to expect the same respect for one’s own dignity and autonomy. This is the heart of the Golden Rule. It encourages all parties, especially for­ eign proselytizing groups, to negotiate and adopt voluntary codes of conduct of restraint and respect. This requires not only contin­ ued cultivation of interreligious dialogue and cooperation—the happy hallmarks of the modem ecumenical movement and of the growing emphasis on comparative religion and globalization in our seminaries. It also requires guidelines of prudence and restraint that every foreign mission board would do well to adopt and en­ force: Proselytizers would do well to know and appreciate the his­ tory, culture, and language of the proselyte; to avoid Westerniza­ tion of the gospel and First Amendmentization of politics; to deal honestly and respectfully with theological and liturgical differ­ ences; to respect and advocate the religious rights of all peoples; to be Good Samaritans as much as good preachers; and to proclaim their gospel both in word and in deed.8 Moratoria on proselytism might provide temporary relief, but moderation by proselytizers and proselytes is the more enduring course.

Notes and references: 1 See Natan Lemer: Religion, Beliefs, and International Human Rights (Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 2000). 2 See Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na’im, ed.: Proselytization and Communal Self- Determination in Africa (Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1999); Paul E. Sigmund, ed.: Religious Freedom and Evangelization in Latin America: The Challenge o f Modern Pluralism (Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1999); John Witte, Jr., and Michael Bourdeaux, eds.: Proselytism and Orthodoxy in Russia FID ES ET (Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1999); Symposium on “Pluralism, LIBERTAS Proselytism and Nationalism in Eastern Europe” in Journal o f Ecumenical Studies 2000 36(1999), 1-286.

16 3 Susanne Hoeber Rudolph and James Piscatori, eds.: Transnational Religion and Fading Stales (Boulder/Oxford: Westview Press, 1997). See the series of articles in Fides et Liberias: The Journal o f the International Religious Liberty Association (1999), 1-74. 5 Each of these instruments is reprinted in Tad Stahnke and J. Paul Martin, eds.: Religion and Human Rights: Basic Documents (New York: Columbia Center for the Study of Human Rights, 1998). Also see Tad Stahnke: “Proselytism and the Freedom to Change Religion in International Human Rights Law” in Brigham Young University Law Review (1999), 251. 6 See Lemer: op. cit., Chap. 4. 7 Jaroslav Pelikan: The Vindication o f Tradition (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1984), 68. 8 See Anita Deyneka: ‘‘Guidelines for Foreign Missionaries in the Soviet Union” in Witte and Bourdeaux: op. cit., 331-340; Lawrence A. Uzzell: “Guidelines for American Missionaries in Russia,” ibid., 323-330; John Witte, Jr., and Richard C. Martin, eds.: Sharing the Book: Religious Perspectives on the Rights and Wrongs o f Proselytism (Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1999).

Dr. Witte adapted this article from his lecture at a Conference on Religion and Foreign Policy arranged by the United States Department of State, Washington, May 2000.

FID ES ET LIBERTAS 2000

17 Constitutions and Proselytism

Jose Maria Haro Sabater

Counselor on Religious Affairs Ministry of Justice of Spain Madrid

Foreword. The present article constitutes the introduction to a study I carried out in 1999, in which I collected the articles or sec­ tions from the constitutions of 146 nation-states of the world con­ cerning the following items: • Religious freedom. • Restrictions to religious freedom. • The right to propagate religion. • Religious proselytism. I selected the 146 states from among the 189 members of the United Nations, then grouped them by continent because the con­ stitutional texts within a geographical area have great affinity. ( But it is also obvious that one can find great differences in one and the same continent as, between the Islamic and non-Islamic nations of Africa and Asia.) In some nation-states where a formal constitutional text does not exist, I referred to articles from basic laws equivalent to a con­ stitution. Again, I limited myself to material relating to the items listed above. Having gathered the material, I have prepared an introduction in which I attempt to abstract the entire survey and provide a brief comparative study. I do not intend to offer any value judgments. The aim of my research is to report objectively on the legal situation of these matters as they appear in the constitutional and legal texts.

I. Constitutions of African Nations. Virtually all African constitutions recognize the right to religious freedom, although they differ in emphasis. Based on this difference, the nations may be divided into three groups: (1) Islamic countries, i.e, nations whose constitutions declare Islam the state religion: Algeria, Egypt, Libya, Morocco, Sudan, and Tunisia. All proclaim the right to freedom of conscience and worship, but without further detail. Libya’s Constitution does state, FID ES ET however, that religious freedom will be exercised “in accordance L.I BERT AS with established customs,” a reservation that raises many questions. 2000 (2) Secular countries, i.e., those whose constitutions declare

18 the state to be secular: Eritrea and Ethiopia. Religious freedom will be exercised without prejudice to the secular status of the state. (3) The rest of the countries, nearly all located in sub-Saharan Africa. Many of the constitutions of these nations adopt almost lit­ erally the text of Article 18 of the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Quite a few of the constitutions of black Africa explicitly rec­ ognize the right to change religion as well as the right to propagate religion. These rights are acknowledged in Botswana, Kenya, Mauritius, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Swaziland, Zambia, and Zimbabwe. Tanzania recognizes the right to “promote worship and evangelization.” Thus the countries most favorable to proselytism, at least according to their constitutional texts, are those of equato­ rial and southern Africa. With regard to constitutional limits on the exercise of these rights, African nations impose restrictions for a variety of reasons. In order of importance, they are— • Public order (Chad, Republic of the Congo [Brazzaville], Ethiopia, Liberia, Seychelles, Sudan, Swaziland, Tunisia). • The rights of others (Cape Verde, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gambia, Liberia, Namibia, and Seychelles). • Public health and morals (Eritrea, Ethiopia, Liberia, Seychelles, Sudan, and Swaziland). • National security (Eritrea, Ethiopia, Seychelles, Sudan, and Swaziland). Other restrictions are based on— • Economic welfare (Sudan). • Accepted customs (Chad, Republic of the Congo [Brazzaville]). • National interest or unity (Gambia, Namibia, Nigeria). • Social peace (Nigeria). • Defense (Swaziland). To a large extent, these limitations coincide with those recog­ nized under the principal international instruments, e.g., Article 18.3 of the ICCPR. But here, as is the case on other continents, the limitations are lacking in definition.

II. Constitutions of the Americas: Canada, United States, and the Nations of Latin America. Nearly all the constitutions of North, Central, and South America recognize the right to religious freedom. Quite a few of them (including Bahamas, Barbados, and Belize) incorporate the content of the ICCPR into the texts. Some constitutions explicitly recognize the right to propagate FID ES ET religion: Belize (Article 11.1), Colombia (Article 19), Dominican LIBERTAS Republic (Article 9.1), Grenada (Article 9.1), Guyana (Article 2000

19 145), Jamaica (Article 21.1), and Nicaragua (Article 29). But the absence of such precise language in the constitutions of other na­ tions in the region does not mean that propagation of religion (which is closely related to proselytism) is prohibited. The right to change religion is implicit in any constitution that provides for religious freedom, but it is specifically recognized in (among others) Bahamas (Article 22.2), Barbados (Article 1.1), Belize (Article 11.1), Cuba (Article 55), Grenada (Article 9.1), Guyana (Article 145), and Jamaica (Article 21.1). With the sole exception of the United States, religious free­ dom is subject to constitutional limitations in almost every country within the Americas. The impositions are, in general, the restric­ tions found in international conventions with slight differences in detail: morals, accepted customs, and law and public order. But the Constitution of Ecuador sets pluralism, public safety, and the rights of others (Article 36.11) as limits to religious freedom. The Constitution of Guatemala (in Article 36) states that religious free­ dom will be subject to limitations for reasons of public order and “due respect for the dignity of the hierarchy.” Mexico’s Constitution says that the only limitation is the commission of of­ fenses or infractions punishable by law (Article 24). But the Mexican Constitution also states that religious acts celebrated out­ side places of worship will be subject to governmental authoriza­ tion (Article 24). The United States presents an unusual case. The main body of the Constitution makes not one mention of religious freedom. But the First Amendment (which with all the amendments is an integral part of the Constitution) forbids Congress from making any “law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free ex­ ercise thereof. ...”

III. Constitutions of Asian Nations. While the constitutions of Asian states vary widely in their recognition of religious free­ dom, four general classifications may be identified: (1) Constitutions that recognize religious freedom without re­ strictions: Japan (“freedom o f conscience is inviolable”), Lebanon (“freedom of conscience is absolute”), and the Philippines (Article 5: “The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and wor­ ship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed”). (2) Constitutions of the Islamic states (which form a group with the Islamic states of northern Africa): Bahrain, Bangladesh, FID ES ET Brunei, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Maldives, Oman, Pakistan, LIBERTAS Syria (which, while not proclaiming itself an Islamic state, does re­ 2000 quire the president to be a Muslim), United Arab Emirates, and

20 Yemen. Although most of these nations recognize the right to free­ dom of conscience in their constitutions, some (such as Kuwait and the U.A.E.) add that this right will be exercised “in accordance with established or observed customs.” However, the right to freedom of conscience and religion is not expressly recognized in the constitutions of Iran, Oman, and Yemen. The Constitution of Iran confers liberty only on three non- Islamic religious minorities. The Constitution of Oman only guar­ antees “the freedom to practice religious rites according to the recognized customs.” But the Constitution of Yemen states (Article 5) that “the state shall abide by the United Nations Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Charter of the Arab League, and the universally recognized rules of international law.” (3) Constitutions of secular states (a subdivided classification). (A) Revolutionary socialist states: North Korea and Vietnam, both of which officially recognize freedom of conscience and religion. (B) Secular states such as Turkey and Turkmenistan. Both countries recognize freedom of conscience and religion, but Turkey imposes certain limits (see below). (4) Israel, the world’s only Jewish state. Because Israel does not have a written constitution, it is necessary to refer to its Declaration of Independence (which guarantees freedom of con­ science and religion to all citizens) and to its fundamental laws, in particular the law on human dignity and freedom. The right to disseminate or to propagate religion is specifically mentioned only in the constitutions of Azerbaijan, Fiji, and the Solomon Islands. And only the constitutional texts of the latter two countries explicitly recognize the right to change religion. The constitutions of some countries restrict proselytism: Malaysia (Article 11.4: “a state law ... will control and restrict the dissemination of any doctrine or belief among persons who profess Islam”) and Nepal (Article 19 prohibits converting persons from one religion to another—which amounts to prohibiting proselytism). The constitutions of various Asian nations contain a variety of limitations on the practice of religious freedom ranging from the usual to the unusual: • Public order (Azerbaijan, Cambodia, India, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Malaysia, Mauritius, Pakistan, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Syria, Thailand, United Arab Emirates). • Public morality (Burma [Myanmar], India, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Malaysia, Pakistan, Singapore, United Arab Emirates). FID ES ET • Public health, peace, and safety (various nations). LIBERTAS • National customs (Bahrain, Thailand). 2000

21 • Shari’a (Islamic religious law) (Maldives). • Any act intended to divide the people or religions (Laos). • A national belief in socialism and in the unity and solidarity of the nation’s races (Burma [Myanmar]). • Use of religion as a pretext to form a foreign alliance (North Korea). The Constitution of Turkey recognizes freedom of conscience and religious belief and conviction (Article 24). But it also limits rights and freedoms. Here is Article 14: “None of the rights and freedoms embodied in the Constitution shall be exercised with the aim of violating the indi­ visible integrity of the State with its territory and nation, of endan­ gering the existence of the Turkish State and Republic, of destroying fundamental rights and freedoms, of placing the gov­ ernment of the State under the control of an individual or a group of people, or establishing the hegemony of one social class over others, or creating discrimination on the basis of language, race, re­ ligion or sect, or of establishing by any other means a system of government based on these concepts and ideas.”

IV. Constitutions of European Nations. Constitutional texts of the nations of both Eastern and Western Europe establish the principle of freedom of conscience and religion as a right of the in­ dividual. They are adapted to accepted international instruments, in particular the Council of Europe’s Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (November 4, 1950; see Article 9.1). Religion can be practiced freely in public as well as private. In general, the only limits are public law, public safety, public order, public health, public morals or accepted customs, and the rights and freedoms of others. But given that most of these stated limits are indefinite and variable concepts, their interpreta­ tion varies from state to state. In fact, such limitations are not specifically stated in many constitutions. Belarus, for example, limits religious freedom in a quite different way: The Constitution prohibits the activities of religious denominations that are “directed against the sovereignty of the Republic of Belarus, its constitu­ tional system and civic harmony;... preventing citizens from ful­ filling their duties to the State, society, or their family.” Some constitutions go further in their recognition of religious activity. Article 19 of the Italian Constitution recognizes the right to “propagate” religion. However, such recognition is not neces­

FID ES ET sary in other European countries where it is generally protected by LIBERTAS the right to freedom of speech. 2000 Proselytism is typically related to a change of religion or belief.

22 The right to change religion is clear in several constitutions includ­ ing those of Cyprus (Article 18.4), the Czech Republic (Article 15), Finland (Article 8), and Slovakia (Article 24.1). Any change of reli­ gious profession or belief must be made freely and without coer­ cion. But few constitutions specifically prohibit coercion. Four that do are Cyprus (Article 18.5: “The use of physical or moral coercion to force a person to change religion or prevent a person from chang­ ing religion is prohibited”), Estonia (Article 41 : “No one may be coerced to change their opinions or beliefs”), Iceland (Article 64: “No one may be forced to change religion against their will”), and Sweden (which addresses this issue in the context of the rights of foreigners. Article 22 specifies that a foreigner “has the same right as a Swedish citizen to be protected from any coercion for . . . be­ longing to any religious congregation or other association”). Separate mention should be made of the Greek Constitution (Article 13.2) which prohibits proselytism. It is the only European constitution to use this term, the interpretation of which is so prob­ lematic. What is meant by proselytism under the Constitution of Greece would require a study of Greek legislation and jurisprudence.

V. Constitutions of Australia and the South Pacific. I se­ lected the most representative constitutions of this region. First of all, the Constitution of Australia, in language similar to the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, guarantees that “the Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any reli­ gion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion.” Australia may therefore be in­ cluded among those nations placing no restrictions or obstacles on the practice of religion. With respect to limits placed on religious freedom, two partic­ ularly interesting constitutions refer to proselytism without using the term. The Constitution of Papua New Guinea (Article 45.3) states: “No person has the right to intervene in the religious affairs of another person with different beliefs or to attempt to impose an­ other religion ... on others by harassment or by other means.” Secondly, the Constitution of Samoa prohibits “unsolicited inter­ ference by members of other religions” in the practice of one’s own religion.

Conclusions. From this survey I draw the following conclusions: (1) The large majority of the 146 selected constitutional or legal texts recognize religious freedom as a fundamental right in a manner FID ES ET similar to the international instruments of universal or regional LIBERTAS scope. Flowever, in some states, particularly the Islamic nations, 2000

23 improper or inappro­ methods ofproselytizing. (2) The limitations to the exercise ofreligious freedom vary (3) The right to change religion is implicit in the right to 24 Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and the American Convention state this. Some European constitutions specifically prohibit the Pacific constitutionally forbid attempts to impose a religion on an­ such a general declaration is not expressed in their constitutions. safety, public health, public morals or accepted customs, and the Rights, the European Convention for the Protection ofHuman freely choose a religion or not to have any religion. Some consti­ or her beliefs. In a similar manner, some nation-statesother of personthe by harassmentmembers or by theof unsolicitedother religions interferenceThese in the two practice ofbehaviors oftheir could own well faith.be termed widely. In American and Europeangenerally constitutions, specified the are restrictionsin the areas oflaw, public order, public rights and freedoms ofothers. Theseamong restrictions others, the are International in line with, Covenant on Civil and Political on Human Rights. But there are Africanother constitutions, and Asian countries,particularly that any in establish case, peculiarstandards limitations.ofpublic moralityInmay vary or public considerably health, forfrom example, one constitutionalnation to another, texts andmay thereforebe interpreted the in many different ways. tutions, mostly in European and American nation-states,use of physicalexpressly or moral coercion to force someone to change his priate IDES ET IBERTAS

Il J 2000 Multiculturalism and Missions

Sharon Linzey

Professor of Sociology Director, Institute for Religion in Society George Fox University Newberg, Oregon, U. S. A.

Today it is common to hear academics and churchgoers alike question the commission that Christ gave His disciples: “Go . .. into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature; baptiz­ ing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and the Holy Ghost” (Mark 16:15 KJV, Matthew 28:19 KJV). Those who take this mandate seriously are likely to find themselves labeled as “eth­ nocentric,” “bigoted,” or worse, not only by anthropologists and sociologists, but by people in the street. Today it is considered un­ cool to “impose” one’s religious commitments upon others. Thanks to James Michener, author of Hawaii, and the proponents of cultural relativism, missionaries have been widely categorized as ignorant, intolerant, and bigoted.

Should we send missionaries? Is it acceptable to send mis­ sionaries to other cultures to “impose” the gospel message on those who have differing religious orientations? I asked this question to people of all walks in Russia—Orthodox, Protestant, scholars, and politicians—and received answers ranging from a hateful and xenophobic, “No! You have no right to be here. Get out and mind your own business!” to a more conciliatory, “Yes, please help us do the work of the church and get Christ’s message out to those who are lost in darkness, but let us do it with care and considera­ tion of the sensibilities of the people.” In the past few centuries, no one questioned the appropriate­ ness of sending missionaries to other cultures. All of the major world religions have been spread this way. But in today’s political climate, the core value of evangelism is being questioned. Postmodern values teach that each culture is unique and precious, and every expression of diversity is valuable. According to this view, all cultures are basically equal and no culture is entitled to impose its values on another. Missionary activity is a form of cul­ tural aggression and sending missionaries abroad is a deep viola­ FID ES ET LIBERTAS tion of the rights of that culture. But there is a problem with the postmodern multicultural way 2000

25 For more thanjust Since the relative status ofChristianity has declined in Cultural aggression and imperialism? The cultural imperialism ofEurope in the 19th century had a The grand idea ofa multicultural world where no one culture 26 Christian religion has served as a straw dog for the multiculturalistintellectual and academic circles—even Christian academic and in­ sion and imperialism. For the previous fifteen hundred years,sphere when of relative cultural tolerance within what might be loosely aggressively Christian cultureaboriginal must be as culturevalid orand any valued other as culture. an Yet, ifmulticulturalists faith, they would do violence to their own world view. Hence the or aren’t they? Western intellectual circles andthis multiculturalismlogical flaw has not is beenin ascendancy, exposed or explored. Instead,argument. the As a result, Christianity has been seriously denigratedtellectual in circles! Young people in the West understand goddessvery well worshiper—than to profess Christ as Lord. sified as the world has grown smaller over the past hundred years. gion—particularly Christianity—as an instigator ofcultural aggres­ cred understandings and worshipRoman with in thetwo Westdistinct and culturalOrthodox poles: in the East. As a result ofofculturesthis in Europe. After activitiesChristianity usually was established, did not involve dards.mission the For imposition example, ofIrishcultural ChristianityChristianity, stan­ differed andthese from differencesGaelic were honored and respected. oflooking at the world. Ifall cultures are equally valuable, then an were to take the view that allthe cultures positive are valueequal ofin Christianvalue, including missionaries evangelizing multiculturalistfor their has a problemwhich with mayhis or be her labeled own worldviewas ethnocentric,xenophobic closed as those minded, they criticize.or even Are all cultures equal in value that it is better to be anything—Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, atheist, deeply secularized nature. Inbut the Western 20th century, secular it culturewas not rialisticthat religion was theforce. most The aggressive force ofthis and cultural impe­ aggression has onlyMissionaries inten­ were guilty ofipatedcultural in aggressionthe paradigm only ofasthe they secular partic­ culture ofthe 19th century. the past century, Western civilization has tended to identify reli­ Western society had a Christian orientation, there was antermed atmo­ Christendom. Cultural unification occurred by means ofsa­ bipolar cultural unification, there was a rather peaceful coexistence Likewise in the East, Russian Christianity had its own cultural im­ print which distinguished it from a purely Byzantine Christianity. IDES ET IBERTAS

IL J 2000 or philosophy reigns supreme has burst upon the postmodern mind lately as a new and exciting touchstone. In actuality, however, the world had been, for millennia, multicultural without anyone realiz­ ing it. Historically, numerous cultures co-existed, but each adher­ ent to a specific culture believed that “My culture is superior to any other.” It was natural to impose cultural standards upon vanquished adversaries. Adherents to the numerous cultures were hardly eager to put aside their judgments and aggression towards other cultures. Whether you talk about the Chinese domination of Tibet, the historic and the recent wars of the former Yugoslavia, or the Russian wars with Chechnya, adherents of most cultures adhere to the notion of cultural superiority—the superiority of one’s own culture. The modem Western view looks with optimism at the pos­ sibility of bringing its more enlightened culture to those who are in darkness. But the postmodern Westerner views his modern compa­ triot with scorn, abhorring the arrogance of thinking that one cul­ ture is a more positive expression of the human spirit than another. The hottest issue one can discuss in a multicultural context is the idea of mission, evangelism, or proselytism. For multicultural- ists all three concepts are equally deplorable. For them proselytiz­ ing means the forced imposition of not only religious, but cultural values. For modern multiculturalists, this understanding of prose­ lytism has also been attributed to the concepts of mission and evangelism, unless a particular “outreach” is devoid of religious content, like a soup kitchen that serves only food and no doctrine. It doesn’t take long for a modem Christian, steeped in multicul­ tural ideology to ask which should take precedence: the multicul­ tural mandate or the “great commission.” How can you have it both ways? The answer of the modem era was quite direct. As Elton Trueblood stated: “There is no such thing as a non-witness­ ing Christian.” But what should the Christian’s answer be in the postmodern era?

The Pauline standard. The multiculturalist’s contempt for evangelism and missionary activity ignores the question of indige­ nous missions—missions whose instigators belong to the cultural milieu in which they evangelize, like the Christian house-church leaders in China or the Serbian Christian missionary activities in Muslim locales. The early disciples of Jesus, who were the first Christian missionaries, preached to compatriots whose cultural un­ derstandings and values were their own. The Apostle Paul was the first Christian missionary to reach out to those of another culture. FID ES ET Saying that what a different culture believes is “good enough LIBERTAS for them,” or saying that they don’t need “the truth as we under­ 2000

27 2000

rIBERTAS ET -nIDES judge them not to need knowledge and faith in Christ, for after all all after for Christ, in faith and knowledge need to not them judge act of faith gave rise to a great hope in those who embraced the the embraced who those religion. in hope central Christian great a This to rise salvation. gave faith ultimate of act from person a kept it that heinous Christian The era. modem was the for Christianity era. complement modem spiritual the the ideal an that during function played has the faith understand to Christian need we vehemence their Christianity, understand To against Christianity. criticize they as even that politically divided and fractured so is race to human will The so. political do the have not do we but problems, these solve know to not we do how only Not progress. in faith is ill-placed an of atmosphere, result the the in holes ozone huge and warming global com­ with crisis, plete ecological present Our disillusionment. and pointments faith lent itself to the notion of progress: There was no sin so so sin no was There progress: of notion the to itself lent faith era. modem the of optimism the sunk have stum­ which great blocks these bling on founded was thought Postmodern soon. time implemented any be would they unlikely is it created, were solutions if disap­ great in also but achievements, in great only not resulted era mani­ as people defining by individualism attacks It victimization. reason, other no for if because, the expression including religious religions, all intolerant toward most tolerant very be should turalist mercy.” His and knowledge of measure their in the idea of progress. The faith in progress that defined the modem modem the defined that progress in faith The progress. of idea the in societies. free in participants than rather groups of alleged festations from rising and entitlements to claims grievances lays then cultivates and debate, self-pity, and multiculturalist discussion the limits, inhibits its reality to ideology the But pushed When culture. of different. genus quite special is a is expression religious all multicul- postmodern the the speaking, to calling Logically the and commission? great multiculturalism extreme between divide people. developed” “less on teaching religious or culture any of know. can humankind that (as goes the common talk), “God will judge them according to to according them judge will “God talk), common the goes (as Or— offer. to have Christians that is truth universal no is there believe actually we therefore and others things: three of one imply to seem would it,” stand 28 This hope was seemingly confirmed by people’s experience people’s by confirmed seemingly was hope This In the West it is fascinating to watch postmodern intellectuals intellectuals postmodern watch to fascinating is it West the In The peculiarity of postmodern civilization is the disappointment disappointment the is civilization postmodern of peculiarity The Can there be any way of mediating or ameliorating the cultural cultural the ameliorating or mediating of way any be there Can imposition forcible the as ethnocentric as is position last This and cultures other for disdain inherent an possess it We (3) what to as awareness and sensitivity our in dulled are We (2) (1) We Christians don’t have anything significant to share with with share to significant anything have don’t Christians We (1) in the secular world. In the Americas the dispossessed peasantry of Europe found an apparently endless horizon onto which they could advance and claim as their own. For cultures dependent on agriculture, an endless supply of land was equivalent to an endless supply of wealth. The world around them reflected the spiritual values of Christianity. At the dawn of modernity, in the 16th and 17th centuries, it was commonplace to compare Christian missions with trade. Missionaries actually went hand-in-hand with traders because traders were looked upon as “preachers” of new economic ideas. Conversely, missionaries were looked upon as “merchants” selling new religious ideas. The new economic model that spurred the be­ ginnings of global commerce had common roots with the mission­ ary model. This innovation in the idea of Christian mission was signifi­ cantly different from what had transpired before. Through me­ dieval times Christian missions were aimed not at the individual, but at converting collective entities—household, family, tribe, peo­ ple, race. From the 13th century, however, Christian missions at­ tempted to convert individuals. It is problematic whether this new missionary model preceded and determined the new capitalist model of economic life, or vice versa. In the modern and postmod­ ern worlds, mission clearly belongs to the sphere of private life. The postmodern criticism of Christianity and Christian mis­ sions is, at its root, a criticism of the idea of constant progress and eternal optimism. It is a profoundly conservative reaction to the optimism of Christianity. The postmodern worldview is rooted in the notion that things should stay the same. Cultures should be cor­ ralled and not be allowed to aggressively intrude on one another. Taken to its logical conclusion, this would mean the cessation of global trade and travel. It would mean a return to a more primitive life, perhaps rooted in agriculture. It would mean the loss of many of the economic and social freedoms that have developed as a re­ sult of the progress achieved in the modem era. These are tremen­ dous prices to pay. But if progress can no longer be achieved, then what other choice is there?

Missions in Russia. Fet’s look at missions in Russia for a mo­ ment. It may be a shock to leam that the experience of the last four centuries demonstrates that Protestant missions have had little or no cultural or social effect in Russia. Beginning with Peter the Great’s

attempt to import forward thinking Protestant ideas from Western FID ES ET Europe, Protestants have made few deep inroads if you look at Russia LIBERTAS on a very broad, macro scale. While Western technological advances 2000

29 In fact, Russia’s most important import from the West was the Is religion superordinate to culture or is it subordinate to cul­ Why, then, engage in mission activity at all? Why intrude on There are some fine examples ofpresent-day missionaries who 30 foreign lands to give a version ofthe truth which is not going to ofculture. Ifthe hearer can understand the proclaimed truth and violating it. Bruce Olsen went to Colombia and lived with the ally delayed Russia’s economic development. Correspondingly, there aries beyond which He cannot be shared? Do we teach our young change the cultural mind-set? Christiansgoing would to proclaim reply that the they truth are ofJesus toChrist. give The the reasonhearerthe for missionmeans to is achieve spiritual freedom irrespective apply it within his/her own cultural context, then from a Christian have gone to lands and culturesable foreignto present to themselves the truth of andthe weregospel within that culture Motiloneswithout for five years beforeone heMotilone told the friend.story ofWithJesus theChrist conversion to ofBobarishoara, the en­ Richardson and his family wentand relatedto the SawiChrist tribe to thein New SawiThe Guineapeople Sawis as were the eternalable to “peaceceasean theattemptchild.” practice to “keepofexchanging peace” andGod babies avoidAlmighty in war when had given they realizedHisJackie only that Pullinger,Son as the eternala twenty-year Peaceable Child. oldAnglican British parishwoman to leftgo herto the comfort­ walled city near Hong Kongfollowers to in colonies all overand Asia help who gang feed members the poor get and all off hungrywithoutdrugs and betraying get their the lives culture. together— And we remember Hudsonlive, preach, and die among the indigenous peoples there. revolutionary economic thought ofKarl Marx.as “progressive,”While masquerading and rooted in a commoncial hope improvement, for economic Marx’sand so­ ideas in actualitythe stultified culture, and oppressedeconomically and socially. The communist regime actu­ has been a delay in cultural and individual progress as well. have been appropriated by the Russians overcial theseand centuries,cultural effectsthe so­ ofthe Protestant faithcompanying in progress and optimism its ac­ seem to have been minimal. ture? How do we view the truth claims ofChrist? Are therepeople bound­ to stay home and mindto engage their own in business?some form Doof “helpful”we tell them missionary activity and let the perspective, that person has inherited the kingdom ofGod. tire tribe embraced Christ asneighboring Lord. This tribevillage then and went won to thatthe entire tribe to Christ. Don work among the drug addicts. Today she has throngs ofindigenous Taylor and James Fraser and Eric Liddell who went to China to IDES ET IBERTAS

1L J 2000 truth claims of Jesus Christ be incidental? However these questions are asked and however they are answered, Christians must also re­ spond in some way to another mandate: ‘“All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disci­ ples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you’” (Matthew 28:18-20 RSV). Why did Jesus ask His disciples to intrude on others’ private religious beliefs and cultural understandings? The commandment was, after all, to go to all nations! Didn’t He understand that all peoples in their search to answer the great questions of life—the questions of pain, suffering, and death—would have to come up with answers on their own?

Who has ultimate authority? All of these questions revolve around a single question: Who has ultimate authority? From the Christian’s perspective, scientific postmodernism is not the ulti­ mate and final authority. Christ is. In addition to the Christian ap­ peal to a higher authority, there are fatal flaws in the postmodern logic. Looking at the beliefs of the postmodernists critically, they are logically inconsistent. If accepted, the postmodern beliefs about multiculturalism destroy those very beliefs. It is the problem of a tolerant person’s intolerance of another’s intolerance. However, some postmodern criticisms of present mission practices are well taken. Christians are not commanded to repro­ duce Western culture, but to witness to the kingdom of God on earth so that fellow human beings can enjoy and participate in the kingdom of God here and now. We Christians are to witness to the truth of Jesus Christ because we believe that hearing this truth is a basic human right for all people. Why should those of other lands be bereft of the knowledge of the truth of Christ? Why should they be left in darkness if indeed Christ is the one who can make a dif­ ference in this life as well as in the next? Is it not the epitome of ethnocentrism to leave others in darkness, saying that they have no right to the truth? It is because all cultures are equal that they all have the equal right to hear and know the truth of Jesus Christ. Who are we to attempt to convert others? We are disciples of Christ, the living God, who loves all peoples of all cultures equally, who wants all peoples of all cultures to know Him as the truth, so that they may experience eternal life. Ethnocentric? Unwarranted aggression? An artificial imposition of Western cul­ tural values? Leaving others in darkness would certainly be all of FID ES ET those things. LIBERTAS 2000

31

The New

to comment editorially (April 20, 1997): “A schism Seen against this background, the issue ofproselytism and its (1) The special character ofthe state, only a halfcentury (2) oldThe as complex interaction between the Jewish majority (3)and The tensions between Orthodoxy (in both its Zionist and (4) The nature ofJewry as an ethno-religious community, or a A subject which, oflate, has occupied not only Israeli society Next to the issues ofwar and peace, the relationship between York Times 32 Proselytism and limitations constitutes a minor issue in Israel. This does not mean Herzliya Faculty ofLaw Its Limitations in Israel Professor ofInternational Law either underestimating the importance ofthis problem for some (the Knesset, the political parties,lons), butand thealsojudiciary Jews in thein allDiaspora States,its eche­ which (particularly has the inlargest the United isconcentration the matter of ofconversionsJews outside to Judaism—anIsrael), issue closely con­ an independent, sovereign, political entity. non-Jewish citizens. non-Zionist versions), Conservative,secular, orand undefined, Reform Judaism,majority ofandthe thepopulation. community ofreligious origin, in general, as developed over more Interdisciplinary Center Professor ofInternational Human Rights churches and people or its needmeans for properlocating regulation. it adequately It catedonly in the situation, framework exceeding ofa most by compli­far any strictly local implications.' nected to, although not overlapping,The polemics the question on conversion ofproselytism. thoritiesis mainly areon entitledthe issue to ofauthorizewhich versial au­ conversionsdraft law engenderedto Judaism. a A stormycontro­ debate, prompting religion and state is probablyproblem the most fordifficult Israel. andThis fascinating is due to: than three millennia. Tel Aviv University Natan Lemer IDES ET IBERTAS

IL J 2000 among the Jews?” The editorial underlined the risks of an abso­ lutist approach in a pluralistic society. I do not believe that such a religious schism is a real and present danger, but when a respected newspaper perceives the possibility, it cannot be ignored. Israel, The New York Times indicated, “is the last country” that can afford a religious schism. Simultaneous with the vehement debate on conversion came legislative proposals to restrict proselytism—proposals criticized by liberals and opposed by Christian religious groups for whom freedom to proselytize is very important. Of such was 1996’s draft law No. 950, introduced by two members of the Knesset—one from Labor, the other from an ultra-orthodox faction. It was aban­ doned, however, so the only legal text concerning proselytism was a law dating from 1977, but never enforced: the Enticement to Change Religion Law, an amendment to the penal law. (I shall refer to this later.) Ultra-orthodox thugs also committed a few acts of violence against Christians accused of being missionaries. Some of the culprits received jail sentences.2 In general, it would appear that conversion and proselytism issues are much more related to intra-Jewish religious quarrels than to an inter-religious problem such as, for instance, the situation in Greece which led to interest­ ing decisions in the European Court of Human Rights in the cases of Kokkinakis and Larissis.3 In an important 1997 decision of the Supreme Court,4 President Justice Aaron Barak reiterated the frequent claim that in Israel, a “Jewish and democratic State,” one finds in matters con­ cerning religion a balance adequately reflecting a pluralistic philos­ ophy of society based on mutual compromise and tolerance. Proper respect and consideration for the religious feelings of the majority should not lead to limitations affecting human rights of people not belonging to the majority. And this is a goal not easily achieved in a society as complex as that of Israel. * The population of Israel is multi-ethnic, multi-religious, and multi-cultural. Of around 6 million people, Jews constitute about 80 percent. Arabs are the principal minority. Most of them are Muslim. The rest include Druze, Bedouins, Circassians, and others. There are about 150,000 Christians in Israel, most of whom are Arabs, with the rest of Western origin. Despite differences rooted in history, culture, and sociology, the large Jewish majority shares the feeling of belonging to a single nation with a common past and

a common religion. Jewry has been described as an ethno-religious FID ES ET community, or people, in which religion and ethnicity are insepara­ LIBERTAS bly united, notwithstanding the views of individual Jews who may 2000

33 be non-believers, agnostics, atheists, or adepts of other attitudes concerning religion. Within the population as a whole— (A) Israeli Arabs, the largest minority, consider themselves extremely different from the majority in terms of ethnicity, culture, language, national origin, and most certainly religion. Israeli Jews, the majority, acknowledge these differences with full awareness. (B) The Jewish majority itself comprises several religiously differentiated groups running from pure rationalistic secularism to a pronounced ultra-orthodoxy demanding an inflexible interpreta­ tion of Halacha, Jewish religious law. (C) Ethnic and cultural divisions within the Jewish majority introduce additional differentiations. (D) The Palestinian-Israeli conflict and its Arab-Israeli exten­ sions impress their mark on the majority-minority relationship. (E) Internal party politics permeates religious issues as experi­ enced in the few cases directly or indirectly involving issues of conversion and proselytism. The Israeli legal system must be kept in mind in this regard.' Its sources are various: (1) Modem legislation adopted after the creation of the state. (2) The millet system within Ottoman legislation which, in matters of personal status and family relations (marriage, divorce, and successions), provides autonomy to each of the major religious communities. (3) British law, particularly from the period of the Mandate. (4) Traditional Jewish law applicable in the area of family matters to all Jews, religious or not. The prevailing complicated system attaches considerable weight to the group or community. Defined in religious terms, there are at present 14 recognized communities, the largest of which is, of course, the Jewish community. Certainly this system plays a role when it comes to proselytism, an activity likely to af­ fect the group dimension. * The State of Israel is a unique case in nation-making. It was conceived, bom, and built as a polity committed to the purpose of Zionism, the movement aimed at changing the life conditions of the world-scattered community called the Jewish people— a people who have had a great influence on the development of humanity in the religious sphere; a people who, despite their dispersion for two

FID ES ET thousand years, kept the hope of rebuilding their national LIBERTAS sovereignty in their ancestral land. Zionism conceived a state 2000 which was to be Jewish—a political entity in which the peculiar

34 nature of Judaism and/or Jewry, an inextricable combination of ethnicity, faith, and culture, would be embodied not only in sym­ bols—the flag, the anthem, the star of David, the menorah—but also in its legislation and institutions, and in its policies governing immigration, absorption, and development. But a clear-cut, legally binding definition of what “Jewish” means has never been agreed upon. Depending on the person doing the interpreting, being Jewish may be taken as a demographic, anthropologic, or cultural notion, or as a religious concept, or as a combination of both. It is therefore not surprising that many Jews, whatever their religious views, see any attempt to proselytize among Jews as an intrusion into their collective identity and an attempt to separate the religious element from the total, global, integral notion of Jewry. Such a view is evident in certain judicial decisions. One of them is the well-known Rufeisen case.6 The Supreme Court had to decide if Oswald Rufeisen (also known as Brother Daniel), a Catholic priest living in Haifa, bom in Poland of Jewish parents who converted in 1942 during World War II, was entitled to become a citizen of Israel under the 1950 Law of Return, as amended in 1954 and 1970.7 In Europe during the war, Rufeisen had acted heroically, helping persecuted Jews, frequently risking his life. He immigrated to Israel in 1958. Although he had em­ braced Catholicism, he continued to see himself as belonging to the Jewish people. Though the court had words of praise for him, it rejected his claim, opining that since the Law of Return is secular, it was not relevant to Rufeisen’s argument that (according to Halacha) he was, indeed, a Jew. Thus the court took the view that, in the popular understanding of the man on the street, a Jew who gave up the Jewish religion, adopted another, and even became a priest of the new religion, could not be considered a member of the Jewish community. The court advised Rufeisen to apply for citi­ zenship under the naturalization law instead of the Law of Return—which he did. Wrote Justice Silberg in the decision: Whether he is religious, non-religious, or anti-religious, the Jew living in Israel is bound, willingly or unwillingly, by an umbilical cord to historical Judaism from which he draws his language and its idiom, whose festivals are his own to celebrate, and whose great thinkers and spiritual heroes . . . nourish his national pride. . . . It is not my purpose to ... present any particular point of view as to the most desirable course for the future development of the Jewish people. I know well that opinion in Israel as to what is and should be is divided into all the various shades of the spiritual rainbow— from the extreme or­ thodox to the total agnostic. But there is one thing that is shared by all Jews who live in Israel (save a mere handful) and that is that we do not cut FID ES ET ourselves off from our historic past nor deny our ancestral heritage. We LIBERTAS continue to drink from the original fountains. The shape has changed, the channels have been altered, but we have not sealed the wells... ,8 2000

35 The Rufeisen/Brother Daniel case has obvious implications re­ garding proselytism. Relevant to this are the activities of those who call themselves Messianic Jews, persons not accepted as Jews by either the authorities or by public opinion. They do proselytize. To offer information about their views (which are based on the con­ viction that Jesus is the Messiah who will return to establish a kingdom on earth as foretold in the Biblical book of Daniel), the Messianic Jews publish newspaper advertisements.9 Another group, claiming to have about 1,000 members in Israel, many of Jewish origin, are the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Of late they have started what is described as a proselytizing campaign by visiting people, distributing literature, and explaining their suffering under the Nazis.10 The right of the Jehovah’s Witnesses to establish a meeting place, despite the views of a municipal body, was recog­ nized by a Tel Aviv district court in 1997.11 The decision, which pointed out that suspicion of the Witnesses’ missionary activities may have prompted the municipal authorities, was appealed to the Supreme Court. In 1995 a Supreme Court panel of seven justices dealt with the meaning of a Mandate-period ordinance regarding registra­ tion of conversions.12 Court President Justice Meir Shamgar wrote the decision: Freedom of religion and conscience is one of the fundamental prin­ ciples of our system. This freedom belongs to the values composing the normative bases of our system since the establishment of the State. The freedom to change one’s religion is grounded in the framework of the freedom of religion and conscience. Therefore, a reasonable interpreta­ tion of the existing legal situation is that the different authorities will not intervene in this sphere of the individual’s autonomy, and that the deci­ sion of an inhabitant or citizen to change his religion, on the one hand, and the decision to admit a person within a religion to which he wants to adhere to, on the other, will be free from any intervention on the part of the State. Conversion is a private matter. In a free society every person is entitled voluntarily to change his religion. Fie does not need any official authorization. The need of an autho­ rization only comes up in our view in relation to the personal status. Religious membership carries many consequences with regard to the law of the State in everything concerning the sphere of the personal status. But not beyond that. On the whole, with the exception of the 1977 law against in­ citement, there are no legal limitations concerning proselytism. Except for censorship in the area of security matters, there are no restrictions on freedom of expression—oral or written, and the courts have granted full protection to this right. In some instances, FID ES ET religious sensitivity—Jewish and non-Jewish—was protected by LIBERTAS the courts, but this did not affect the issue of proselytism. 2000 *

36 At this point I should summarize my views with regard to proselytism in general. (1 have done this in detail in an article in­ cluded in the Emory International Law Review's comprehensive issue on the problem of proselytism in Russia.13) The right to pros­ elytize—to try to convince people to adopt a specific religion— is closely related to the issues of the freedoms of expression, associa­ tion, scientific research, and education. It is not absolute. It may clash with other legal provisions in countries where family law is under the influence of religion or where some formalities are nec­ essary in order to join or leave a religious community. It is not easy to strike a balance in this respect. The controversy between the uni­ versality of human rights and cultural relativism is relevant. In democratic societies people should be free to disseminate their reli­ gious views. But there is also a right to privacy; uninvited speech should not necessarily prevail. Proselytism may be limited when it is conducted in places where people constitute a “captive audi­ ence” or “captive target” such as classrooms, military installations, prisons, hospitals, and the like. Proselytism involving material en­ ticement—money, gifts, privileges, housing, employment, etc.— should be considered a form of coercion and thus appropriately limited by law. Communal or collective identities are entitled to protection. Minority rights are relevant. Within certain limits, state education may include religious teachings. A downward, deteriorating trend in the recognition of the right to proselytize is to be pointed out in international instruments. The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights establishes in Article 18 a broad right both to teach and to change religion or belief. But Article 18 of the 1966 Covenant on Civil and Political Rights had to use milder language. The 1981 Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief was in danger of not being adopted if a compromise had not been reached. Western lawyers and United Nations rapporteurs do not see in this trend a change in the international position with regard to pros­ elytism, but some religious communities claim that the rights to pros­ elytize and to change religion or belief are not binding on them. In its comment on Article 18 of the Covenant, the UN Human Rights Committee has followed the classic universalist approach.14 To summarize: The right to proselytize and the right to change religion must be protected. But they are not absolute rights. They are included in the current common minimum standard accepted by the majority of legal systems, but not by all of them. In any case, these rights should exclude coercion and intrusion in privacy. FID ES ET * LI BERTA S Against this general framework I shall now refer to the present 2000

37 * 1. 1. Whosoevergives or promises to a person money, money’s worth, . . . . [T]he missionary organizations active in the country use many Missionaries are allowed to proselytize, although the Church of Jehovah’s Witnesses suffered verbal abuse, assaults, theft, and 2. Whosoever receives or agrees to receive money, money’s worth, Those organizations which possess unlimited monetary means uti­ Lately there has been an increase in the activity ofthe missionaries anti-proselytizing law prohibits anyone from offering or receiving mate­ or some other material benefitgion in ororder in orderto induce thathe him may tois change induceliable to hisanother imprisonment reli­ person to for change five years his religion,or a fine of 50,000 pounds. The Explanatory Note says6 this (free translation): The only instance ofpositive legislation concerning prose- As to the territories under Israeli military occupation, the ment with the Government. (This agreement led to the construction ofthe restrictions on proselytizing,materials including encouraging a ban on the conversions. distribution A of morewritten restrictive Knesset bill that last would April banwith significant government support.the Neither draft billsbill areis ex­discriminatory and serve to intimidatevandalism Christian duringgroups. the year, apparently by ultra-Orthodox groups. Jesus Christ ofLatter Day Saints has agreed notto dobeautiful so under building an agree­ ofthe Mormon University on Mountrial benefitsScopus.) asA an 1977inducement plied to conversion,for several years.but the In law1997 has a not bill beenwas introducedap­ to impose virtually all forms ofproselytizing passed a preliminary reading inthe Jehovah’s Witnesses assert that police did not adequately investigate two or some othermaterial benefitgion or in toreturn cause for another a promiseonment person to changetofor change a term his hisofreli­ threereligion, years is orliable a fine to of impris­30,000 pounds. and different means in orderthose to falling chase soulsinto their and web. cause the conversion oflize material enticements.whose They economic are particularly situation money,active is difficult. amonggrant people[They]them economic promisecountry thembenefits, and big change andsums induce theirof themreligion. to leave the Israeli Armed Forces soldiers.their units.[They] try to influence them to abandon break-ins at a meeting house in Lod in February. pected to be enacted. Christian and other evangelical groups assertthat that take advantage ofthevance difficult their situation aims. The in themissionary country organizationsin order to ad­ are also active among 38 situation in Israel. To protect my claim ofrelative objectivity,State HumanI Rights Report for 1998: (Enticement to Change Religion)English Law translation (5738-1977). of its Theoperative official paragraphs reads as follows: Occupied Territories chapter states: “The Israelifreedom government ofreligion respects and does not ban any group or sect on religious quote from the Israel chapter in the United States Department of lytism in Israel is the aforementioned Penal Law Amendment grounds. It permits all faiths to operate schools and institutions....” IBERTAS IDES ET

U. J 2000 The only way likely to stop the missionary work in Israel is by en­ acting legislation against such activity. The purpose of the proposed law is thus to stop the activities of the missionary organizations through the prohibition of all missionary activ­ ities accompanied by material enticement. Similar legislation exists in many countries in the world. As already pointed out, this law was not applied in practice. A parliamentary investigation undertaken more than a decade ago to deal with the “danger of cults” did not produce any results. The at­ tempts to introduce new legislation to oppose proselytism that took place in recent years have to be seen in the light of internal Israeli politics. Non-religious politicians obviously tried, by joining such at­ tempts, to gain favor among the religious parties. Such was the case of the aforementioned draft law 950 of 1996. The Labor politician who sponsored the draft withdrew his support, allegedly in return for the declaration of some Protestant groups not to engage in active proselytizing.1 In the light of the results of the elections on March 17, 1999, there is no reason to believe that this kind of legislation will succeed. The prevailing trend in the Knesset is to preserve the so-called status quo in matters of state and religion, based on the pol­ itics of compromise. For example on January 26, 1999, a draft law on freedom of religion that would have insured, among other things, equality between the different creeds and cultures, was defeated 28 (yes) to 43 (no; these votes from the coalition).18 It is to be expected that such legislative attempts will be repeated. As to judicial intervention, frequently an area of religion-state relations charged with emotion, some decisions are relevant to the subject at hand. The Supreme Court has ruled that a person con­ verted to Judaism in any Jewish community abroad is entitled to be registered as a Jew in the Israeli Population Registry. Jerusalem judges recently imposed prison sentences on youths involved in acts of vandalism against the home of three Christian girls who had been accused of missionary activity by the ultras. There were also acts of violence against the leaders of Jews for Jesus and Chabad and against the Baptist church in Jerusalem. The police intervened. On December 30, 1998, a Jerusalem district court ruled that converts to Reform and Conservative Judaism must be registered by the Ministry of Interior regardless of where the conversions took place. This decision is related to the attempts to reach an agreement on the creation of a “conversion institute,” where Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform teachers would train aspiring converts, while leaving the actual conversions to the Orthodox courts. The conversion issue is also closely connected to the large number of im­ FID ES ET migrants from the former Soviet Union who are not Jewish in faith, LIBERTAS but for whom recognition as Jews is important in many respects. 2000

39 Not accepting the imputation of proselytism, the Supreme Court rejected an attempt to prevent Chabad, an ultra-orthodox group, from operating a counter at Lod International Airport for the purpose of trying to induce Jews to behave according to reli­ gious norms. The court did state, however, that the counter cannot be used for Chabad propaganda or to attract arriving passengers to the group, as has been done on some occasions.19 In order to complete this Israeli case study, it is pertinent to mention the Report on the Implementation of the Covenant on Civil and Human Rights submitted by Israel to the UN Human Rights Committee. In the chapter devoted to Article 18 of the covenant, the report points out that there is no established religion in Israel, although Israel does not maintain the principle of separa­ tion of religion and the institutions of government. While Israel has been quite successful in guaranteeing the freedom of religious practice, particularly for the non-Jewish communities, “it is more difficult to claim that ‘freedom from religion’ is fully protected, particularly for the Jewish population.” Sections 170-173 of the Penal Law (5737-1977) prohibit any utterances likely to “outrage” the religious feelings or beliefs of a person. Under the heading “Conversion,” the report says that in general every person in Israel has the right to change religion, and that the state does not inter­ vene in an individual’s decision to adopt or change religion nor in the decision of a particular religion to accept any person as a mem­ ber.20 In some circumstances a formal official approval of conver­ sion may be demanded. It is necessary to distinguish between recognition of conversion by the secular organs of the state and ap­ proval of a change of religion for purposes of matters of personal status. Religion is an item appearing in the Population Register and on one’s identity card. While the Ministry of Interior cannot refuse to recognize non-Orthodox conversions, the rabbinical courts do not recognize as Jews persons converted by a non-Orthodox body. * I have tried to explain to what extent the right to proselytize exists and is both protected and limited in Israel. A full, objective picture can only result from an understanding of the nature of Israeli society, the social forces acting in the state, the interaction between the majority and the minorities, and the character of the majority. The Jewish majority, as well as the Arab main minority, are ethno-religious communities determined to preserve their col­ lective identity. Although they respect the right to freedom of ex­ FID ES ET pression, which includes the right to proselytize, the communities LIBERTAS do not like intrusions which result in splitting that collective iden­ 2000 tity. Thus proselytism is legal, is tolerated, but resented by some.

40 This may result in attacks against the right to disseminate one’s re­ ligion in communities where a different religion prevails and com­ prises an inseparable component of the group’s global identity, notwithstanding the individual philosophies or attitudes of, loosely speaking, non-religious persons.

Notes and references: Literature on state and religion in Israel is enormous. In English see, gener­ ally, Asher Maoz: “Religious Human Rights in the State of Israel” in J. D. van der Vyver and J. Witte, Jr., eds.: Religious Human Rights in Global Perspective—Legal Perspectives (The Hague: Kluwer, 1996), 79-134; S. Zalman Abramov: Perpetual Dilemma: Jewish Religion in the Jewish State (Cranbury, New Jersey: Rutherford, 1979); and Amnon Rubinstein: “Laws and Religion in Israel” in Israel Yearbook on Human Rights, 3. 2 Haaretz (March 2, April 20, and June 9,1999). 3 On this issue, see my article “Proselytism, Change of Religion, and International Human Rights," in Emory International Law Review, Vol. 112, No. 1, 1998. 4 H.C. 5016, 5025, 5090, 5434 / 1996. 5 See Yoram Schachar: “History and Sources of Israeli Law,” in Amos Shapira, Keren C. DeWitt-Arar, eds.: Introduction to the Law o f Israel (The Hague: Kluwer, 1995). 6 72/1963, 16 Piskei Din 2428. 7 Sefer Hachukim, 51, 159, and 586, 34. 8 The quotation is from the English translation of the record, published by the Ministry of Justice in 1963. 9 Ha ir, March 12, 1999. 10 Haaretz, March 3, 1999. 11 Haaetz, August 15, 1997. 12 Pesarro (Goldstein) v. Minister o f Interior, H.C. 1031/93. 13 See Note 3 above. 14 On the evolution of United Nations instruments, see my article “Religious Human Rights Under the United Nations,” in van der Vyver and Witte (referenced in Note 1 above). 15 United States Information Service, March 2, 1999. 16 H atza’ot CAoANo. 1313, 5738, p. 40. 17 The Jerusalem Post, March 31, 1999. 18 Haaretz, January 27, 1999. 19 H.C. 714/89. 20 Pessaro (Goldstein). (See Note 12 above.)

This article expands on a paper Prof. Lerner presented at the 1RLA Conference of Experts, San Lorenzo de El Escorial, Spain, May 1999.

FID ES ET LIBERTAS 2000

41 An Ethical / Catholic Perspective of Proselytism

Roland Minnerath

Professor of Church History University of Strasbourg Strasbourg, France

I. The Need for a Code of Good Conduct. Ethics are in­ voked when a choice has to be made between opposite options: The imperative of mission and the temptation of proselytism. Christianity is a missionary religion. Evangelizing—sharing the good news and calling for conversion—is a duty for all Christians and churches. How this duty is interpreted and carried out is the basic question. Though missionary activity is always deeply asso­ ciated with the specific social and cultural context in which it oper­ ates, it nevertheless seems possible to work out some principles of proper evangelizing activity rooted in the attitude of Jesus and the apostles. In particular, the good news is a call directed to free human beings. It cannot be imposed from outside by means of psy­ chological or physical constraint. In our present understanding of human rights, the freedom to communicate and the freedom to receive a message of religious faith is anchored in the very nature of human beings and must be recognized as a civil right protected by law. This civil freedom also implies the right not to be pre­ vented in any way from converting to another religion, or not be­ longing to any religion. A person can be moved to adhere to God’s call only through inner persuasion. This inner movement is pro­ voked by the power of truth itself. Behind the range of attitudes towards proselytism is the funda­ mental concept one has of the religious truth in which one believes. Does your religious faith invite you to respect and consider persons with other creeds, or does it suggest that they need to be converted by all means? Only if your own faith gives you a strong motivation to respect the dignity of all human beings can the temptation of proselytism be avoided. Only if you behave as a servant, not as an owner of the truth, can God be preached and His word freely shared with others. FID ES ET In the past, evangelization was often carried out through vio­ LIBERTAS lent means and state-supported initiatives. This period is now over 2000 in so far as Christianity is concerned. Christian churches have

42 made a remarkable effort to distinguish between mission and pros- elytism, often reaching a common understanding of how they should behave in propagating their faith. But now we are facing a new challenge. The most active proselytizing groups today are not the traditional churches but the new religious movements, either of Christian or other inspiration. Most of the time they are reluctant to dialogue with others, relying instead on a simplistic dualism be­ tween themselves as those who are saved and the rest of the world which is condemned. Here is the main challenge today. It has both a theological dimension—the question of the truth, and a legal di­ mension—the respect for human rights. When it operates in the public domain, proselytization should indeed submit itself to an evaluation of its ethical criteria. International legal limits to proselytism are not at hand, but some national laws expressly prohibit unfair proselytism. In a strict sense, international norms only protect the individual from external aggression or pressure. Only by implication do these norms sug­ gest the right of a religious organization to win, honestly, new ad­ herents. International law is concerned with limiting the power of the state in these matters and defining exactly its duties in protect­ ing public order, public health and morality, and the rights of oth­ ers. Improper forms of proselytism are employed by groups or individuals who may unduly intrude on the private sphere of oth­ ers. This behavior may generate a conflict of rights: the right to free expression on the one hand and the right not to be coerced on the other. Different cases at the European Court for Human Rights show how fluid the borders are between correct and incorrect pros­ elytizing. For example, a military officer may not take advantage of his position to engage in religious talks with his subordinates, but he may do so with civilians who have the freedom to escape. It is not permitted to take advantage of captive audiences. Personal physical and psychological freedom must always be guaranteed. Behaving according to commonly accepted norms should be the goal to be achieved by all religious groups. Helpful to this end would be a code of good conduct.

II. Catholic Principles of Proselytism. In Catholic literature, “proselytizing” is a concept which has become synonymous with unfair and morally unacceptable methods of propagating the Christian faith. The Second Vatican Council (1962-65) concluded that while all religious groups have a right to “publicly teach and

witness their faith by voice and writings ... all action having the FID ES ET savor of coercion or dishonest or incorrect solicitation” must be LIBERTAS avoided, “specially when uncultured and needy persons are in­ 2000

43 volved.” 1 Such conduct is not only morally wrong, it constitutes an abuse of human rights. As an offense against the rights of others, it falls under the sanctions of state law. The state must protect the rights of all its citizens. When the right to express one’s conviction turns into illegal pressure, it is an abuse of this right and must be prosecuted as such. Theologically speaking, Catholicism’s duty is to “announce the good news”—to proclaim it, not to impose it. The proclamation is a call to be freely accepted or rejected.2 The document on the missionary activity of the church clearly draws the distinction be­ tween evangelization directed towards non-Christians as a call to freely convert and all methods which are a negation of conversion itself: “The church severely forbids forcing anybody to embrace the faith or alluring or enticing people by unworthy techniques.” 3 The definition given of religious freedom as an immunity from co­ ercion implies that “no one is to be forced to act in a manner con­ trary to his/her own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others.”4 The Ecumenical Directory (March 25, 1993) recommends that bishops take measures to overcome the temptation to indifferen- tism and proselytism, mainly in the younger churches. The mission of the church develops between these two extreme attitudes: The false assumption that all religions are equally valid on the one hand, and on the other, that conversion should be obtained by un­ fair means. “In their relationship with other churches and church communities, Catholics will behave honestly and prudently. .. . Falling into the temptation of indifferentism or proselytism would be the end of a true ecumenical spirit.”5 Catholics are invited to nourish esteem and consideration for other Christians and to ex­ pose doctrinal issues in ways that do not jeopardize dialogue (n. 61). Another document (1997) from the Council for Christian Unity insists on the ecumenical training of ministers. Particular at­ tention should be given to the phenomenon of proselytism, consid­ ered as a challenge to be addressed in the present context.6 But the church does not give up the duty to evangelize. In his 1990 encyclical Redemptoris missio, Pope John Paul II regrets that today the call to conversion, which is at the heart of the church’s mission, is often interpreted as an attempt at “proselytism.” It is also wrong to pretend that Christians should just encourage every­ body to be faithful to his/her own religion. Any person has the right to hear the good news of Christ and to respond to it.7 FID ES ET LIBERTAS III. A Catholic View of Proselytism as a Practice in Other 2000 Christian Churches. Missionary activities such as home visita­

44 tion, evangelistic campaigns, street preaching, media ministries, and mass mailings are popular within the evangelical movement. The Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran, and Anglican churches shy away from such action. Evangelicals rarely complain about undue Catholic proselytization among evangelicals, but the opposite is not true. In many venues where it is firmly established, the Catholic Church is heavily exposed to the organized activities of many evangelical movements. Consider, for example, Brazil where many of the newer Christian churches win adherents from Catholicism on a daily basis. Their methods often employ dishon­ est incentives as well as anti-Catholic psychological harassment. The threat of unfair proselytism does not occur among the older, traditional Christian churches. The Vatican II declaration on ecumenism8 and subsequent church documents recommend ecu­ menical cooperation in missionary activity. The first Ecumenical Directory (May 14, 1967) observed that when, among Christians, sharing of spiritual gifts is not possible and mutual respect is not evident, at least proselytism must be avoided (n. 28). In the mani­ fold dialogues between Christian confessions, proselytism among Christians is always rejected.1’ This point was strongly emphasized by the Third Joint Commission of the World Council of Churches and the Roman Catholic Church in its special document Common Witness and Proselytism. 0 The Joint Commission defines proselytism as a corrup­ tion of the duty of Christian witness: “It includes any attempt to of­ fend the right of any person, Christian or non-Christian, to be free from external constraint in religious matters, and also those forms of evangelization which contradict the will of God, who invites men and women to follow His call freely and to serve Him in spirit and truth.” The commission document emphasizes these ideals: • A common witness is given when Christians recognize the spiri­ tual gifts in other churches and testify to what they have in common. • Christian witness must be coherent with the spirit of the gospel; it should not offend ongoing inter-Christian dialogue. • God-centered Christian witness focuses on His glory and man’s salvation, not on the advantage of one confession over an­ other. It always respects the freedom of those to whom it is ad­ dressed; it never exploits their weakness or their poverty; it never offers material or social benefits resulting from a change of confes­ sion; it excludes all methods of compulsion, including the uncriti­ cal use of mass media.

• Christians bearing witness to their faith do not denigrate the FI DES ET faith of others. Witnessing Christians do not spread prejudices LIBERTAS about other Christians. They do not distort their own spiritual con- 2000

45 victions the better to attract others. The document does not reject the missionary activity of Christians in areas where traditional Christian churches are already established. This should not lead to competition, but rather to a rein- vigoration of the credibility and witness of the local church. With re­ gard to foreign missionaries, they should intervene only when the local church fails to meet the spiritual needs of its own members. In 1989 the Middle East Council of Churches, embracing Eastern Orthodoxy, Catholicism, and certain Protestant Evangelical denominations, adopted a document on Proselytism, Sects, and Pastoral Challenges which expressed the wish for a “pastoral agreement” among member churches on the issue of proselytism: Any attempt to attract believers from one body to an­ other should be replaced by a “dialogue of love.” Such a positive attitude, the council held, would enrich each church with the expe­ rience and missionary zeal of the others.

IV. Proselytism as a Catholic-Orthodox Issue. Most Catholic statements on proselytism are related to the Orthodox churches sim­ ply because the Orthodox churches accuse the Catholic Church of practicing proselytism among them. This accusation emerges from the historical background of “uniatism.” From the 16th century through to the 20th, most of the Eastern churches were separate, but a few chose to join in communion with Rome. For instance, in 1595 a part of the Ukrainian Church left Russian Orthodoxy. At the very end of the 17th century a part of the Romanian Church entered into communion with Rome. These changes did not require changes in faith, liturgy, or canon law. But the respective Orthodox churches refused to accept the divisions on the basis of the concept of “canonical territory.” Based on this criterion and under the pressure of communist rule in 1948, the Russian Orthodox Church forced Ukrainian Greek-Catholics into the Russian patriarchate, and the Romanian Orthodox Church similarly compelled Romanian Greek- Catholics to submit to the Romanian patriarchate. Following the fall of communism, the captured churches regained the freedom to con­ firm their bond with Rome. But the Orthodox hierarchy continues the accusation of Roman Catholic proselytism. The patriarchs consider the very ex­ istence of these restored Greek-Catholic communities an offense to the ecclesiastical unity of the so-called Orthodox territories. Russian Orthodoxy considers John Paul II’s appointment of new

FID ES ET bishops for the Catholic communities in Russia as proselytism. LIBERTAS For the same reason, the Orthodox hierarchy rejects the activity 2000 of foreign missionaries in general. At the Patmos Summit

46 (September 1995) 12 Orthodox patriarchs condemned both Catholic and Protestant proselytism in Orthodox countries. To such charges the Catholic Church answers that its priests do not intend to convert Orthodox Christians, but only to minister to its own members. The Church of Rome fully respects its Orthodox sister churches and fosters loyal dialogue with them. In 1990 a joint Catholic-Orthodox commission published A Statement on the Subject ofUniatism which declared that uniatism was no longer valid. This position was restated in the 1993 Balamond agreement on Uniatism: Method o f Union in the Past and the Present Search for Full Communion. The document made clear the pastoral activ­ ity of the Catholic Church in non-Catholic eastern countries does not aim to proselytize among the Orthodox, but the Catholic Church maintained the right to evangelize by honest means any person searching for faith. On their part, the Orthodox did not chal­ lenge the freedom of Greek Catholics to remain Catholic. Rather, they admitted that the Greek Catholic churches could play a role in preparing for full Catholic-Orthodox communion.

V. Proselytism Among Other Religions and Among Nonbelievers. With reference to the missionary activities among followers of other religions, many questions are at stake. Theologically, the only answer is “We have a duty to introduce you to Christ and His salvation. You are free to follow Him or not.” But in practice it is not so simple. Is it morally justified to separate somebody from their own religious tradition and thus per­ haps marginalize that person within his or her native community? In the past, there has been a strong link between European colo­ nialism and mission. Christians are seen as Europeans or as Westerners who are alien to local cultures and traditions. In India and in Muslim countries, ethnic and religious identity are often one and the same. Thus violent reactions to, and rejections of, Christian witness are still observed. Witnessing Christian faith among believers of other religions implies a positive attitude about “all that is true and holy” in these religions. The Vatican II declaration on non-Christians religions in­ sists that Christian witness means paying attention to the “spiritual and moral goods ... and the values” within other religions.11 The attitude of the Christian should be one of respectful dialogue and cooperation: No denigration, no coercion, no indirect incentives. It must be said that the current philosophy of human rights fa­

cilitates to a certain extent proselytism directed at individual per­ FID ES ET sons. It is understandable that native cultures in the Third World LIBERTAS now react more or less vigorously against some prominent assump­ 2000

47 tions of this philosophy based on the rights of individuals in a plu­ ralistic society where diversity of opinions, creeds, and behaviors is seen as a positive factor in fostering social cohesion rather than threatening it. In Western legal philosophy individuals are often thought of as being isolated atoms, with no vital bond to a family, a culture, a social network, a nation, or a religious community. Liberated individuals are rather abstract entities who are supposed to decide, on the basis of their free will, all that they are going to be and to do—even their gender. Non-Western cultures definitely re­ ject this philosophy of individualism as a kind of anthropology all too incompatible with their own cultures. In point of fact, most cul­ tures of the world do give more attention to the social dimension of human beings; they simply cannot isolate individuals from their so­ cially humanizing context. This is not without consequences to the very concept of freedom of religion and of missionary activity. At present, African and Asian scholars often assume that Christian and Islamic methods of spreading their respective faiths in Africa and Asia was, historically, proselytism on a large scale. Weak cultures could hardly resist the invasions of both colonialists and missionaries whose external superiority created an imbalance with local traditions. The offer of the local people to change their religion often began a process of acculturation which destroyed na­ tive cohesion and resulted in a deep crisis of identity. Therefore local politicians and religious leaders claim the “right to be left alone” and to have this right protected by interna­ tional instruments. This right would consist of a legally recognized limitation not only on improper proselytism, but also on honest missionary work, the idea being to preserve weaker cultures from being absorbed by stronger, i.e., Western, cultures. This challenge has to be addressed. Now that the era of colonialism has ended, and with the ongoing process of secularization in the West, it can no longer be said that Christianity is to be identified with Western culture only. The West is interested in winning markets, not souls. But Christianity is, in many respects, actually opposed to the nega­ tive aspects of individualism, hedonism, and materialism propa­ gated by popular Western culture. No Western state has any political interest in expanding Christianity in Africa or Asia. But the same cannot be said for some Islamic states where religion is identified with social and legal systems and is supported by state power. Regarding the United States, the interesting question rises whether, by linking financial aid to effective respect for individual

FID ES ET religious freedom in nations of Eastern Europe and the Third LIBERTAS World, the government does not indirectly contribute to the export­ 2000 ing of American evangelical missionaries to these countries.

48 Indeed, this is a challenge for the understanding of human rights, but it is primarily a moral challenge. The point made by Africans, Asians, and Latin Americans is that the freedom to spread religious convictions does not license the destruction of tra­ ditional cultures and religions. They deplore the current philosophy of human rights which, from their point of view, fails to protect the social and cultural background in which a person grows and devel­ ops. The huge spheres of Hinduism, Islam, and Orthodoxy try to protect themselves from foreign religious influence through legal measures. Islamic law actually forbids any attempt to convert a Muslim.12 Some Buddhist and Hindu states also prohibit prose- lytism. In 1992 the United Nations General Assembly endeavored to apply an internationally recognized legal limitation to prose- lytism with a Draft Declaration on the Rights o f Indigenous Peoples. The document would have considered as racist any at­ tempt to rank the relative superiority of peoples over other peoples on the basis of cultural or religious differences. In the Bangkok Declaration of 1993, Asian-Pacific states stressed that the univer­ sality of human rights has to be understood in the context of “vari­ ous historical, cultural, and religious backgrounds” (Article 8). Even Western states make reservations to the international instru­ ments they sign when international human rights conflict with na­ tional legislation. Little wonder the approach to religious proselytism differs from one culture to another. This, however, must be emphasized: If the views reported above were all acted upon, they would foreclose further human de­ velopment. Cultures naturally interact and enrich themselves with new insights. Is it possible to prohibit the propagation of ideas, in­ cluding religious concepts, among indigenous peoples? Not even the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights of 1981 calls for such a radical rejection of external influence. Rather, it encour­ ages the preservation of “positive African values” without saying a word about African religions. Nor do African constitutions built on European models mention special protections for native religions. A few constitutions only restrict undue proselytism. For example, Mauritius (1971; Section 11 5(b)) insists on the freedom to practice any religion “without the unsolicited intervention of persons pro­ fessing any other religion or belief. (See also Zimbabwe, 1980; Section 19 5(b).) One could hardly agree with African claims to create a kind of protected zone of traditional culture and religion where all forms of missionary work would be forbidden. This is in­

deed an ethical challenge in which the theoretical principles set FID ES ET forth must prove to be applicable. LIBERTAS 2000

49

In summary, proselytism and genuine mis­ ,13 Though,13 the NRMs come from different VI. Proselytism and the New Religious Movements. In Latin America, where evangelical, Pentecostal, or millen- In Africa independent NRMs grow in number each day. There VII. Conclusion. The Phenomenon oSects f or New Religious Movements: A 50 Catholic ethics in relation to the proselytism practices ofthe new inadequately accorded necessarysuch pastoralclusters ofcareCatholicism by theirministers, and other traditional faith groups are religious movements maintainsethical a rather norms defensive are invoked stance. to protectHere the Catholic populations. Often an easy ground for the expansionseveral of thestatements NRMs. fromIn the conferenceslastfrom decades the ofHolyCatholic See itself bishopshave sionaries anddeplored even enjoying the attitude massive of foreign financialligious mis­ associationssupport who usingbuild marketingup new re­ techniques and a good deal of anti-Catholic preaching. Indeed,denigration NRM preaching and hatred is of oftenwhat full it ofimagines Catholic faithon and order Pastoral Challenge aggressive methods. Latin American Union ofTwenty-two Conferences ofBishops to be. In 1986 three Church ofRome dicasteries issued a document backgrounds, they are consistent in delivering theirmessage with nialist groups (generally Catholicfrom the Unitedbishops haveStates) calledare widespread, for renewed vigilance in their pas­ (CLELAM) in 1992, John Paul II deplored the plannedcountries strategy “with of important sectarian economic proselytism resources dedicatedcampaigns.” to sustain 14 are more than 6,000 in South Africa alone. These groups are not ing institutionalized churches or by simply ignoring them. African sionary work face a common enemy: closed social and cultural toral programs. Addressing the Fourth General Assembly ofthe the NRMs to destroy the religious bond ofthe Latin American ecumenically oriented. Withground these groups to discuss there anything. is no common They may win adherents by denigrat­ in Africa and Madagascar.15 They see spurthe toNRM improve phenomenon the inculcation as a ofChristianity in the African con­ systems. But proselytism is work.the opposite Missionary ofgenuine activity missionary is othersethically and acceptabletheir convictions, only if itprovides respects freedom to people to search bishops have published a study on these new religious movements text. At the present time, however,little interestthese proselytizingjoiningin an NRMsinter-religiousvance showofa common reflection code on theof ethicalobser­ norms. IDES ET IBERTAS

IL J 2000 for and adhere to the fullness of truth, and freedom from pressure of any kind, either by legal constraint or personal harassment. Finally, missionary activity needs one more element: To share one’s convictions with love.

Notes and references: ' Declaration on religious freedom: Dignitatis humanae, 4. 2 The announcement is called kerygma. See also the Vatican II Constitution on the Liturgy: Sacrosanctum concilium, n. 6 and n. 9. Declaration: Ad gentes, 13. 4 Dignitatis humanae, 2. 5 Council for the Promotion of Christian Unity (March 5, 1993; n. 23). 6 Council for the Promotion of Christian Unity (1997): The Ecumenical Dimension in the Training o f Pastoral Ministers, n. 25k and n. 82. John Paul II (December 7, 1990): Redemptoris missio, n. 46. 8 Cf. Declaration: Unitatis redintegratio, 12. 9 For instance, the Anglican-Lutheran Pullach Report, n. 1; and the Lutheran- Roman Catholic Commission (1980; III, 90): The end of discrimination or suspi­ cion of partners supposes the rejection of all forms of proselytism. 10 Cf. “Report on Common Witness and Proselytism,” Annex II to the Third Joint Report adopted May 1970, in Dokumente wachsender Übereinstimmung 1931-1982, pp. 625-634. See also the Sixth Joint Report (1981), n. 53. 1' Declaration: Nostra aetate, 2. 12 Cf. The Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam (1990; Art. 10). 13 Published in Enchiridion vaticanum, Vol. 10, pp. 252-281 (Bolongna: Ed. Dehoniane, 1989). 14 Discourse at the opening session, October 12, 1992, n. 11 (in DC 1992, p. 1026). 15 SCEAM (Symposium of the Conferences of Bishops of Africa and Madagascar): The New Christian Movements in Africa and Madagascar (March 13, 1992) (in DC 1992, pp. 989-996).

Edited from a paper Monsignor Minnerath presented at the IRLA Conference of Experts, San Lorenzo de El Escorial, Spain, May 1999.

FID ES ET LIBERTAS 2000

51 2000 it BRAS r IBERTA ET IDES rated into the constitutions of many democratic states. democratic many incorpo­ of been has it constitutions the into significantly, rated More ordinances. various in tion Westphalia. In subsequent centuries this right has received protec­ received has right this of centuries Peace the of subsequent In signing the and Westphalia. 1648 least at since religion of for purposes the of established. is one is state this the for the which protect practice, actually religious must his in state the person practice, religious person’s a conscience. of voice the follow to obligated morally is doubt. in he remain to Regardless, choose simply may he or error, into fall may have which interpretations and practices, traditions, of result the supersedes the rights of the state. Far from hindering or obstructing obstructing or hindering from Far state. the of rights the supersedes he mistakes, make may he search, this In to truth. right the religious has for Man search autonomy. and privacy person’s a of spheres being. human every freedom—for religious free­ including demand who dom— those by degree greater a to claimed is man of religions. other attack to duty their is truth. it of believe, depositary they only the Therefore, themselves consider may belief of manifestations Such religion. f o name the in place taken have re­ organized periods, some In others. of treatment the in kindness fundamental rights. True religious liberty respects the most reserved reserved most the respects liberty religious True other all rights. of basis the fundamental and itself life of part a be must liberty Religious or religion particular a of followers The them. around usually formed are beliefs or religions organized of part the on intolerance excesses and atrocities Many liberties, thought. of human denied freedom intolerance, curtailed and extreme displayed have his of ligions than man to inhumanity history man’s f But o race. examples human more the of unity provides the of sense a in immersed is Religions of Registry National Director, General Cardoso Camilo Jose Ministry of Foreign Affairs o f Argentina Argentina f o Affairs Foreign of Ministry Proselytism and Pluralism Perspectives American Latin Buenos Aires Buenos Liberty: Religious on 52 International law has acknowledged the right to free exercise exercise free to right the acknowledged has law International belief or religion a of practice the right, human personal a As dignity the that underline to important is it case, the being This General Considerations. Considerations. General The majority of religions or beliefs beliefs or religions of majority The

The arena of religious liberty now transcends national fron­ tiers. The limitation or restriction of a religious group in one coun­ try may impact other groups in other countries. When, for example, a religious community predominates in one nation, that community might be a minority in another. This reality must be considered within any schema of pluralistic reciprocity. This is why any solution must be a global solution.

Volatile Church-State Relationships in Latin America. We should note first the volatility of church-state relationships in Latin America—relationships sometimes marked by violence, as in Mexico. During the latter part of the 19th century, various coun­ tries (among which Ecuador, Haiti, Brazil, and Colombia) were able to sign concordats with the Holy See. But others (including Argentina, Chile, and Uruguay) were unsuccessful.

Religious Liberty Legislation in Latin America. The consti­ tution of Costa Rica alone places no restrictions on religious lib­ erty. Other countries—Argentina, Paraguay, and Peru, to cite just three—give the Roman Catholic Church special mention in their constitutions. Since 1980, however, when Spain adopted its Organic Law of Religious Liberty, some of the Latin American democracies have proposed new legislation. Mexico deserves special consideration. To implement the con­ stitutional reforms of January 1992, the Law of Religious Associations and Public Cults was enacted the same year. But reli­ gious freedom was still non-existent. Subsequently the Law of Religious Liberty was promulgated—a law similar to those passed in Poland and Russia as they emerged from communism. It— • Prohibits non-Mexicans from running religious associations. • Restricts the political rights of clergy. • Prohibits religious associations and their ministers from pos­ sessing or administering mass communication media. • Restricts religious associations in possessing real estate. • Limits worship in general to the interior of churches or tem­ ples. When, by special permit, worship is allowed outside, the ser­ vice must not be broadcast. This law is weak on religious liberty as a concept, but for Mexico it is an advance. Argentina has, since 1990, debated religious liberty and the need for a law which protects the existence of diverse denomina­ tions. Government bills were not supported. But a newer proposal FID ES ET starts by delineating rights derived from religious liberty and goes LIBERTAS even farther than international treaties. Regardless of nationality, 2000

53 The • • Public preaching without censure. Religious Liberty and the Argentinian Constitution. • • Assistance to religious ministers in hospitals, nursing • • Burial ofthe dead according to confessional traditions. • Observance ofreligious Most days of theseand festivals.religious liberty-based rights are similarly out­ In Latin America, religion is an increasingly important compo­ 54 1817 were opposed to religious liberty. But in 1853 the 140-year-old requirement that the president and the vice president lined in a law Colombia adoptedlisted in in a 1994bill andChile some is considering.ofthem are The Colombian law and the instruments impose on religious liberty are those imposed by stan­ munication with members, designation ofministers and other lic health and the rights ofthird parties. Argentina’s bill includes sues new demands. In response,states newof Latinlegislation America evolves. are basicallyWhile the secular, they can and should Argentinian and Chilean bills also enunciate rights pertaining to homes, and prisons. constitutions of 1819 and 1826 and statutes adopted in Constitutional1815 and Commission ofthe Constituent ConventionFollowing debated the reforms ofserved 1994, the (1)Constitution the right ofofeveryArgentina freelyperson, pre­his citizen or her or religion; alien, to andprofessholds (2) thethat principle “men’s privateofprivacy actionslic which order should or morality,by no means nor prejudicedisturbreserved pub­ a thirdto God party. and areMen’s therefore actionsmagistrates.” exemptare Afrom code the was authority written ofto theprotect against any publicteed by ac­ the Constitution, determinedand any byform a treaty,ofdiscrimination. or stated in Thea law; 1994 reform abolished the churches and religious associations,tions, with communities, reference to orinternal denomina­ organization, free and openreligious com­ personnel, establishmentofinstitutes ofplaces of theology,of worship, and ties.formation educational The Colombian and public law welfare and the Argentinianactivi­ bill also addressthe right pub­ to own cemeteries. In any event, the only limitationsdards ofthesepublic order and morality. nent ofsociety. It makes new claims, sparks new conflicts, and is­ be encouraged to support andgroups promote because denominations they constitute andof religiousoursuch societies.an essential and dynamic part the proposal seeks to provide for— the concept ofreligious liberty. Those who opposed lost. tion or neglect which would alter, injure, or threaten rights guaran­ IDES ET BERTA I S 1L J be Roman Catholics, and further, they are now free to take their oaths of office according to their own religious beliefs. (How an agnostic or an atheist would be sworn in remains unresolved.)

New Religious Movements in a Pluralistic Schema. Not only in Argentina and throughout Latin America, but around the world, we now note a degree of uneasiness regarding the rise of “free religious movements” or “new religious movements.” Society often demands juridical answers to questions made worri­ some by politicians, legislators, and journalists who frequently ex­ press their opinions in ways that reveal a lack of seriousness and real preparation. The so-called new religions (pejoratively identi­ fied and differentiated by some from a state’s predominate histori­ cal or traditional religions) are also called alternative religious movements, marginal religions, cults, or (worst of all) sects. Moderates prefer to use a term which is thought to be impartial, neutral, and precise, but which is no less discriminatory: new reli­ gious movements. In various ways and in various places, the secular world has approached the “sect” problem: • The 1983 report of the French prime minister (the Vivien Report). • The 1984 report of the European Parliament (regarding the activity of certain religious movements in the European community). • The 1989 commission created by the Spanish courts to in­ vestigate the “phenomenon.” The term “sect” presents certain semantic and epistemological difficulties. It originates from the Latin sequi, sequere, sectare (to follow, to separate, to cut). “Sect” refers to the separation of a par­ ticular doctrine from a general doctrine. The word has had differ­ ent meanings in history. During the Apostolic period, it referred to “Christians,” those (first Jews, then Gentiles also) who in follow­ ing Jesus Christ were separated from Judaism in general. Today “sect” has many applications depending on whether the term is used in a juridical, psychological, sociological, or theological sense. In Latin America and in Western Europe, “sect” is usually used in a pejoratively discriminatory sense. Not necessarily so in other regions. For instance, in Japan religions with origins in Buddhism and Shintoism are often referred to as “sects” in a non- pejorative way. To avoid confusion, it is important to understand the perspec­ tive from which the issue of “sects” is addressed. One might ap­ proach the subject from the particular perspective of the religious FID ES ET believer. Or one might examine the matter from the perspective of LIBERTAS the government: Relative to “sects,” what are government’s limits? 2000

55 what limits shall it set? what legislative action shall it take? But, as a secular institution, the state must not act as a judge of beliefs be­ cause this will lead to the curtailing of religious liberty. Rather, government must respect the nation’s religious trends including the majority denomination, the historical or traditional denominations, the minority denominations, and the new religions. All are entitled to all the rights of religious freedom which is the cornerstone of all human rights. At the same time, no organization purporting to be religious and claiming the rights of religious freedom has any right to crimi­ nal activity. Groups which exploit religion for illegitimate gain or violate the fundamental values of individuals and of society as a whole are deserving of a specifically penal reproach. It is simply untrue to state that society is defenseless before the advance of reli­ gious or pseudo-religious organizations which resort to criminal ac­ tivity. There are laws which, if appropriately applied, are sufficient for a legitimate response to the majority of cases. So then, within carefully drawn parameters, the state may seek to identify the be­ haviors frequently related to certain religious organizations. Do the behaviors contravene the juridical values the state should protect? Do the behaviors in fact violate religious liberty? (Some religious groups are known to block complete liberty for their members.) Certainly such state action is critical. Consider, for example, a group of persons living in a house, secluded, without exterior con­ tact, sharing their time in prayer and in works for the benefit of the world outside their doors—works for which the members of the group receive no remuneration. We could be looking at a strange cult of fanatics—or a venerable community of monks.

Limitations of Criminal Law Relative to the Issue of Sects. Argentina’s penal code lists crimes that are regularly attributed to religious organizations. Among them are— • Assault and battery (“to harm a person’s body or health”): Applicable to sects whose actions cause or result in malnutrition or psychological damage. • Violation (including “intimidation of the victim”): When committed by a priest or other religious leader, it may have an ag­ gravating effect. • Promotion or provision of prostitution; corruption of a minor: These offenses become aggravated when they involve coer­ cion, intimidation, or misuse of authority; or when the offender is

FID ES ET the victim’s guardian or teacher. LIBERTAS • Slavery. 2000 • Deprivation of personal freedom: Penalties may be in-

56 creased when it is committed by threat or “with religious objec­ tives,’’ or by an individual to whom the victim owes a particular re­ spect; or when the deprivation continues for more than one month; or when the victim, or a third party, is obliged to do or not to do or to tolerate something against his or her will. • Abduction of a person (kidnaping). • Interception of correspondence: Sects are often accused of isolating their followers and preventing them from communicating with relatives and friends outside the group. • Public disturbance: The code specifically considers the dis­ turbance of worship services. • Fraud: The swindling of followers to deprive them of their possessions. • Illegal practice of medicine. • Cruelty to animals. • Usurpation of authority, honors, or titles: Committed by phony religious ministers. • Use, possession, distribution, or production of narcotics. 1 would point out that among the juridical values Argentina’s present code seeks to protect, there is one unstated fundamental value which many religious groups violate directly: religious liberty. Recognizing that being “religious” is not a societal negative, but a positive, it follows that religious expression and religious manifestation ought to be protected in a special way. Offenses against them deserve a greater penalty. We protect artistic, cultural, and historical values. Religious values should also be protected.

Proposed Penal Code Revision. In June of 1995 the Executive Branch of the Argentinian government sent Congress a new bill specifically crafted to protect, without exception, religious liberty in general and freedom of worship in particular. If passed, the bill would penalize anyone who— • Impedes a person from practicing his or her faith or attend­ ing worship services. • Compels a person to cease practicing his or her faith or attending worship services. • Forces a person to accept or to renounce a religious denomi­ nation. • Assaults a minister while he is fulfilling the functions of his or her office. • Impedes or disturbs a religious ceremony or a funeral. • Profanes a worship place or a sacred object or vandalizes a FID ES ET sepulcher, grave, or corpse. LIBERTAS These offenses would be deemed aggravated if committed by 2000

57 Mutual re­ Proselytism and Inter-Confessional Relations. (4) No advantage, material or otherwise, shall be offered as an The bill directed the setup ofan efficient mechanism for the (1) Only whenthe potential proselyte is fully informed on doc­ (2) The denomination receiving a new member must be (3) The denomination losing a member shall not condemn the Tensions may rise among denominations over mis-perceptions Unfortunately, by March of 1997 it had failed to gamer any 58 International Covenant ofCivil and Political Rights (1966); the ship with churches, denominations, and religious communities. It isting system ofobligatory registration ofreligious denominations spect and continuing dialogue are the fundamental principles of inter-confessional friction resulting from proselytism: protection ofreligious liberty. It defined the government’s guaranteed,relation­ and then applied, principles and rights delineated in Covenant ofEconomic, Social, and Cultural Rights (1966);Convention the on the Rights ofthe Child (1989); and the Unitedand Discrimination Based onRemarkably, Religion or theBelief bill omitted(1981). premise all references that there to “sects”is nojuridical on means.the definition Finally, of thewhat bill the called term reallyforthe government to replace the ex­ Congressional support. and youthmust be given special attention. Theguardian right of interventionparental or must be accordedparticular importance. individual. The receiving denomination should resist arrogance. vides for this important change in lifestyle. inducement either to leave or to stay. ofdoctrinal requirements for membership. Here are some examples: cordial inter-confessional relationships.ofone religious Proselytism—the community from seekingactivity another and acquiring community—is new memberssional an issue relations. that strains But everyinter-confes- religious organization should recognize religious ministers ofany denomination. with voluntary registration. the Constitution and in the Argentina:international theinstruments Pact ofSan ratified Jose by(Costa Rica); the International trine or ideology can he or she choose in complete freedom. Children humbly mindful ofthe personal effects this change may have in an person nor act against him ornomination her with animosity. shall, instead, The evaluatelosing de­ every reason the person pro­ the individual’s right to chooseto modifyor not to his choose or her a faith.religious Here faith,are someor suggestions for reducing Nations Declaration on the Elimination ofAll Forms ofIntolerance IBERTAS IDES ET IL J (1) A church requires its adult proselytes to be baptized again notwithstanding they were baptized as children in the former church. (2) Some denominations hold that the marriage of their mem­ bers to persons of other denominations amounts to proselytism. (3) The union of certain oriental churches with Rome is consid­ ered by Orthodoxy to be the fruit of proselytism. Catholicism makes the same point regarding oriental churches in the Orthodox camp.

Denominational Positions Regarding Proselytism. Accord­ ing to Pope John Paul II’s apostolic letter Ecclesia in America, the Catholic Church censures proselytism that wins people in ways not respectful of their liberty. In its own evangelizing action, Catholicism asserts, such methods are excluded. Catholic evange­ lism is said to respect the conscience of each individual. The pope’s letter states, however, that the Catholic Church cannot view with indifference the evangelistic advances of new religious move­ ments in the Americas. These advances require the church in each nation of South America in particular to undertake a serious study to discover the reasons why so many Catholics are abandoning the faith. I should emphasize that the Catholic Church rejects all reli­ gious discrimination and persecution. Religious differences should never be a cause for violence or war. To the contrary, the peoples of diverse denominations should be motivated by their faith to work together for justice and peace. The Lutheran Church believes that proselytism (the calling of persons to become disciples) is essential to the identity and the mission of the church. And this is true independent of the church’s majority or minority status. The ecumenical character that marks Lutheranism indicates it considers positive Latin America’s eccle­ siastical and religious pluralism. People are free to respond to the propositions of a particular church without causing a confrontation with other churches. In Article VIII of the Augsburg Confession, the Lutheran Church rejects the position that church membership is a privilege reserved for those considered ritually and morally pure. Lutherans question the concept of the church as “granter” of salva­ tion when it ignores community and social needs whose fulfillment is intrinsic to the call of the gospel. But they support the premise that a church challenged by new religious ideas should revise its structures, its priorities, and its methods of communicating the gospel. I would note here that the proliferation of religions and the success of proselytizing efforts in Latin America indicate the exis­ tence of a demand for the spiritual that is not being addressed ade­ FID ES ET quately. In the context of pluralism, ecumenical Christianity may LIBERTAS not meet all religious needs. Thus the Lutheran response seeks to 2000

59 We turn now to Judaism. Its attitude toward proselytism The Baptist term for proselytism is “evangelism.” Baptists ap­ 1998 the president ofthe Baptist World Alliance, Dr. Fanini, and 60 face this challenge not by blamingits message anyone, more but accessibleinstead by tomaking the vast sectors ofsociety. The first represents the specific process by which the gospel Jesus is Christ and thus gaining proselytismeternal salvation. that “buys”(Baptists converts rejecthand, to Baptisttheir churches. churches Onhave the ofhistorically othertheir own resistedmembers the by manipulation otherEvangelization organizations standsseeking for converts.) a more involved process which churchesincludes as they relate to the churchworld. toIt issponsor common activities, for each campaigns,an Baptistevangelistic and spiritprograms among to thepromote believers and in the community. Baptist churches evangelize on a regional or national scale.the InBWA’s general secretary, withDr. PopeDenton John Lotz, Paul were II who able wasto meetvisiting Argentina at the theirsame evangelistic efforts because,tion, accordingLatin America to the is pope’sa Catholic noteddefini­ continent. that most LatinIn response. Americans only;Dr. Faniniarethus indeedthey doCatholics, nojustice but toally theirin namelive declarationas unbelievers. of faith, Dr. butAmericaFanini actu­ expressed cannot bethe identifiedview that asevangelized eitherLatin a Catholic continent, continent but a continentrespondor an to withthe messagea great need ofJesus to hear Christ. and Christian emperors executed dangerousconverts to not Judaism, only for proselytism the Jewishcommunity convertwas at but large. also Now for the new Jewishfactors have entered the situation. parently distinguish between “evangelism” and “evangelization.”preached to a person with the objective ofconverting him or her to the action and the testimony ofeither or both individuals and To accomplish the same purpose, associations, or conventions, of time. The pontiffasked the Baptists to exclude Latin America from ranges from total opposition to full support. When Rome’s The risks that accompanied disappeared.conversions inAs times in ancient past have times,darity largely Jewsand understandingstill demonstrate with theirto everythe soli­ basicperson questions searching of lifefor answeredanswersand faith—questions by the religion that ofmaythehowever, notperson’s be that parents. most convertsIt would desireto seem,Judaism to marry are amotivated Jew than moreby conversionsreligious by the conviction valid? The itself. general asAre there practicesuch is someis to indicationaccept them during desireas longpreparatory to embrace studiesJudaism. of Experiencea sincere shows that many such con­ IDES ET IBERTAS

IL J 2000 verts reach a level of devotion to the faith even greater than those bom in it. Orthodox Judaism recognizes the authority of Israel’s Superior Rabbinate and its court which, regarding conversions, have set precise regulations as well as general criteria to be consid­ ered by the various rabbinates throughout the Jewish diaspora. The recommended approach calls for converts to Judaism to be pre­ pared in Israel itself. Living with adoptive families, the proselytes leam the Hebrew language and absorb the traditions of the Jewish people. 1 must note that Argentina’s Jewish community maintains a significant social presence in the nation. The Jewish population is smaller in other South American countries. From the end of the 19th century onward, Muslim immigra­ tion has resulted in the dissemination, establishment, and stability of Islam in Latin America. Since the 1970s Islamic proselytism has enjoyed a more accommodating atmosphere. The Seventh-day Adventist Church supports the concept that proselytism should not be used as a verbal weapon in religious wars against other denominations—wars marked by dispute, divi­ sion, and malice. It asserts that the employment of false and intimi­ dating methods of evangelism represents the corruption of legitimate witness and an immoral abuse of religious liberty. Additionally, the Adventist Church believes government is not competent to decide if its testimony or witness is valid, unless, of course, its methods of evangelism are shown to violate non-reli­ gious legal norms such as laws against defamation and disturbance of the peace. In Argentina and throughout Latin America, members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints conduct missionary work. The main function of Mormon missionaries is to give to oth­ ers a personal testimony of Jesus Christ, encouraging them to turn to God and become a part of God’s family—and this work pro­ duces the majority of converts. To find interested individuals and families, Mormons go from door to door. They also preach in pub­ lic plazas and other places.

Challenges to Proselytism in the 21st Century. Proselytism has to be considered a factor in religious intolerance. The term itself presents difficulties of interpretation. Each denomination has its own definition, but may not appreciate another denomination’s un­ derstanding. For example, when a large religious organization shares its faith, this is described as “evangelism” or “missionary ac­

tivity.” But when the same thing is done by a small group it is often FID ES ET accused of “proselytizing.” In general, inter-religious proselytism LIBERTAS refers to an individual’s changing from one religion to another or 2000

61 • • All forms ofviolence and psychological pressure that tend • Every offer, open or concealed, ofmaterial advantages, per­ • Taking advantage ofthe potential convert’s personal • situa­ Utilizing a non-religious motive—a political motive, for ex­ • Every unjust and self-serving reference that disparages the • • There is no unity. Ifthis is a correct definition, then as time goes on, proselytism Proselytism was at the center ofthe 1972-98 International • There is no common understanding of“church.” • • Both Catholics and Pentecostals have acted and reacted, at­ The dialogue’s final document described proselytism as disre­ 62 sectarian proselytism as the acceptance ofan offer made by an indi­ Proselytism, therefore, must categorically exclude— sort to economic, legal, or social pressure to diminish the freedom manent or temporary, as an inducement to change from one reli­ itselfmay indeed constitute a threat to religious liberty and peace­ spectful, insensitive, and unkind. Proselytism is something to be possession and control ofhis or her faculties. (But it is important exists because— from one denomination to another.ply Ecumenicala call to follow proselytism Christ, irrespectiveis sim­ ofdenomination. I describevidual, or an offer based on Manichaeanelytism” hassyncretism. a negative Indeed, connotation “pros­with sinceaggressive it is usually campaigns associated to “win” persons ofother religions. gious denomination to another. ample. (In this context, a nation’s majority religions mustof notminority re­ religions.) convictions offaith or conductmeans of otherof trying religious to win communities their avoidmembers. ascomparing a (This isthe important: perceived We strengths must and ideals ofone community. commu­ Every effort shouldfriendly be made respect.) to maintain mutually ful coexistence. tacked and counterattacked. claim(Does tonot being such membersbehavior cancelofthe unique any body ofChrist?) condemned—at the least, avoided—becausecal activity not toit beis anlikened illicit, tounethi­ evangelism. to diminish an individual’s personaljudgment, free will, hereand full to reference the degree oftheabuse whole the business mass media ofproselytism.) may inflict on tion—his or her need or weakness. Catholic-Pentecostal Dialogue. It concluded that proselytism nity with the perceived weaknesses and lack ofideals ofanother IBERTAS IDES ET

1L J 2000 Appropriate Proselytism in the Framework of Religious Liberty. Religious liberty is based on two fundamental suppositions: • All human beings are equal. ( The corollary: All religious beliefs and their associations are civilly equal.) • Equality rules out all forms of discrimination. (Therefore, notwithstanding size or seniority, all denominations have an inher­ ent right to practice and to spread their faith.) Accordingly, we must consolidate and strengthen the princi­ ples and recommendations recorded in the August 1998 Declaration of the Oslo Conference on Freedom of Religion or Belief. (I had the honor of being one of the presenters at that con­ ference.) The Oslo Declaration is based on the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and the Declaration on the Elimination of Every Form of Intolerance and Discrimi­ nation Based on Religion or Belief (1981). I affirm the imperatives for concrete action to protect religious freedom as stated by International Religious Liberty Association Secretary General John Graz at the Bar Ilan Hebrew University of Buenos Aires in October 1998: • In schools and places of worship, promote religious liberty according to Article 18 of he UDHR. • Cultivate tolerance and dialogue among religious denominations. • Avoid stereotypes and generalizations: “All Muslims are ex­ tremists and terrorists.” “All Roman Catholics are part of the inqui­ sition.” “Protestants are really members of dangerous sects.” • Ensure that religious institutions and governments can ac­ complish their unique missions on the basis of a respectful separa­ tion of church and state. There is in Latin America at this time a general determination to legislate in religious matters. How shall laws include an appro­ priate interpretation of religious proselytism without infringing— even eliminating—the rights of religious organizations, majority and minority? Those who respect the fundamental liberties of the individual and recognize religious pluralism as “evangelization” for some and “missionary activity” for others will insist that all legislation must include three pillars: the religious freedom of every individual, the autonomy of all religions as they relate to the state, and for both, equality and fairness.

Translated from the Spanish. This article is edited and adapted from papers Dr. Cardoso presented at Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, U.S.A., October 1997; and at the IRLA Conference of Experts, San Lorenzo de El Escorial, Spain, FID ES ET May 1999. LIBERTAS 2000

63

I

(1) Proselytism is a “yes” and a “but.” It is a human right to Without doubt, this is true within the European Union. Although Thus proselytism, as a part ofreligious freedom, is rightly in­ Another important source ofprotection ofproselytism is Everyone has the rightfreedom to ofthought, conscience, and 64 European Union law: Proselytism in European Union Law spread one’s faith. Everyone has the right to act according to one’s she says. Everyone has the right to gather new believers. Everyone EU law has at present no direct, explicitprovision for religious free­ states ofthe EU. All memberstitutionally states protect and religious throughout freedom their legalcon­ orders. This entails(Even the Greece’sright penal law against proselytism is no exception to Rights; the 1981 UN Declaration on the Elimination ofAll Forms freedom ofreligion or belief. Professor ofPublic Law Director, Institute ofEuropean University Constitutional ofTrier Law religion. This right includesfreedom to change his religion or be- Everyone may try to convince others about the truth ofwhathas the he rightor to change his orgious her religion.freedom— All a thispart is ofpartit, butof reli­not all. dom, religious freedom remains strong in its legal framework. cluded in the common constitutional traditions ofthe member to spread one’s faith, to try to convince others, to gather adherents. all the EU member states arerights: the internationalArticle 18 ofcovenantsthe Universal Articleon human Declaration 18 ofthe Convention ofHuman 2 onRights;and Civil 13 ofandthe Political Convention Rights; on ArticlesSocial, Economic, and CulturalofIntolerance and Discriminationwell as Basedother on international Religion orconventions Belief; as and declarations addressing Article 6 ofthe European Conventiondamental rightson Human and freedomsRights. The expressed fun­ therein form part of Trier, Germany Gerhard Robbers belief. Everyone may speak freely about what he or she believes. this fundamental law.) Moreover, undergirding the legal order of IDES ET IBERTAS

1L J 2000 lief and freedom, either alone or in community with others, and in public or private, to manifest his religion in worship, teaching, practice, and observance. Clearly, EU law owes much to the UDHR’s religious freedom clause. The wording is virtually identical. Any draft of an EU Charter of Human Rights (a project sug­ gested by the ongoing EU presidency) will certainly include a pro­ vision for religious freedom as have all earlier EU declarations on human rights. Failure to include such a provision would constitute an unprecedented disruption of constitutional history. (2) No freedom stands alone. Every freedom is part of a sys­ tem of freedoms and duties. Respect for the plurality of human life requires limits to individual freedoms—to foster freedom itself. The question in Europe is not whether there is freedom; the ques­ tion is where it ends, how it is balanced, what level of importance shall be attributed to any one right, freedom, or interest. The an­ swer must rise from within the systems of traditions and histories, sets of values, ways of life, emotions, fears, and unique experi­ ences of a specific people. The European Court of Human Rights (which time and again has held proselytism a part of religious freedom, to be protected as a fundamental right) interprets Article 9 of the European Con­ vention on Human Rights thus: Freedom to manifest one’s religion or belief shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are neces­ sary in a democratic society in the interest o f public safety, for the protection ofpublic order, health, or morals, or for the protection o f the rights and freedoms o f others. Referring to the 1956 report of the World Council of Churches, the European Court of Human Rights distinguishes between proper and improper proselytism. The latter is a corruption, a defamation, of religious witness. It may include the offering of material or social advantages with a view to gaining new members for a church. It may unduly pressure people in distress or in need. It may even re­ sort to brainwashing (a crude concept) or violence. In general, such methods of proselytism are seen as incompatible with the ideal of respect for the freedom of thought, conscience, and religion of oth­ ers. (On this point, see the line of reasoning in Greece’s Kokkinakis case.) We should note, however, that offering a better life, materi­ ally or socially, is not, per se, legally improper. Indeed, a better life may be the result of adherence to a particular religion. The European Court of Human Rights is an international court. FID ES ET Its jurisdiction differs from that of a national court. It has to respect LIBERTAS different sets of values, different experiences, and certainly different 2000

65 II (1) Why is it that, in many languages, the word “proselytism” “Proselyte-making” carries the memories ofendangered peace (2) And the social situation has changed, indeed. There is no human sovereignties. Wisely, the court has thus far recognized that far in imposing a legitimately debatedalike. set ofThusvalues the everywhere court has consistently held that a certain margin of has such a bad sound? Why is it so politically incorrect? In liberalism. There are historiclong-term reasons emergingexperiences. from profound, the process ofEuropean integration would be harmed ifitwent too discretion is to be left to the memberand states extentin assessing ofthe necessity the existence to interfere in the right ofproselytism. Germany and in many otherterm parts “proselyte-making”ofEurope, the translation is a four-letter ofthe word. This is certainly not among religious denominations.ofthe It goes16th backand to 17ththe centuries religiousing that two wars devastated equally weak Central and Europe,exhausted leav­ churches. The precarious because ofa lack ofreligious freedom, nor is it a reflection ofanti­ 66 Catholics and Lutherans—with the Reformed Church beinglic institutions. at­ For example, each had the same number ofjudges peace that followed was establishedthe equal on protection the basis ofoftheequality—on two major religious denominations.tributed to the Lutheran side—gained equal right ofaccess on theto pub­empire’s Supreme Court.lower This levels pattern of publicwas alsooffice. followedDuring theat year 1628, set as Catholicthe nor­ could choose to remain Catholic or they could convert. mal year ofequality, balance, and stability, those who wereThe same right applied to Protestants.granted in Freedomso far as ofpublicreligion authoritieschange was his couldor her not religion. force anyoneAccordingly, to any attempt by eitherone side side an advantage over the other, thus threatening Central to “make proselytes” endangered the balance. It was seenEurope as giving with the resumption Continent,ofa bloody everyonewar. In otherknew parts ofChristianitythe of danger.the hasEver remained since, the a andmajorunity thus aim,of bleeding not by makingdown the proselytes sionsother asside, a wholebut by throughuniting thesocial confes­ change. imminent danger ofa religious warProtestants.between ButCatholics what aboutand the Orthodox? Do they not actually fear other religious organizations? The Orthodox seemto see their own proselytism more than they do the real membership statistics ofrole in many ofthe eastern European countries as quite different IDES ET IBERTAS

IL J 2000 from that of any other particular religion in any other particular part of the world. Since the fall of communism. Orthodoxy is one of the major ideological and cultural factors integrating those societies. (3) To apply and implement international and regional legal provisions on religious freedom in an adequate manner, we will need to analyze the role of religion in society intentionally and so- phisticatedly. To ignore this need is to endanger the integrity of a culture, the members of which may take as a threat to their pride and power, even their very existence as a people. For a society in search of a new identity—uncertain and subject to being easily hurt—will be the more sensitive to what, rightly or wrongly, it per­ ceives as a threat. Thus religion, sublime though it may be, remains a major factor in uniting Europe. Orthodoxy cannot be excluded. Neither can Islam. The unification of Europe is a question of future peace or future war—with war being the natural enemy of free­ dom, the long-cherished value. Accordingly, we can never impose values by force. They must be adopted by conviction. (4) I once heard an Orthodox patriarch insist on the territorial rule of religion. Then I heard another ask him this question: “Your Eminence, what would you answer to someone who believes God has sent him or her to make new followers? Should not such a one be free to do so?” The patriarch did not answer. Certainly he should have been in favor of freedom. But afterwards I asked my­ self: What if someone really believes that God has sent him or her to keep His flock and to accomplish this by excluding any mission­ ary offering new beliefs? Should not that person’s religious free­ dom be the same? The lawyer has to find a way for both—for peaceful and fruitful coexistence. Proselytism entails a specific concept of religious freedom which can also be seen as a specific limitation of religious free­ dom: It does not allow any religion to prohibit change. This limita­ tion is a serious matter for those religions which do not accept the right of an individual to abandon one’s faith and then perhaps adopt a new one. Similarly, it is a serious matter for those religions which hold that no one has the right to remain without a religion. The theological precondition to the right of proselytism is that true belief and true worship is possible only by individual choice— by the completely free will of the individual person. There are still many who believe that freedom is just another word for “nothing left to lose.” (5) When we speak about the free market place of religious ideas, we should be careful not to overstress words and pictures. Fl DES ET The market place too needs its own rules and structures, its unspo­ LIBERTAS ken preconditions, its common consensus, its do’s and don’ts. In 2000

67 (6) Gone are the times when human rights in general and reli­ (7) Proselytism properly practiced is part ofreligious free­ Edited from an address Dr. Robbers presented at the IRLA Conference of 68 fair competition regulations? anti-trust provisions? A freeseem market to have all the money, chance.while others I would do notnot behave misunderstood. even a Freedom will flourish government, or some other publicmore complex.authority. HumanThe situationrightsother aretoday deemed powers—by is to be groupsunder attackwithin bysociety. People correctly expect the field ofreligion, do we really want consumer protectionpresupposes laws? equal access to available resources, but some markets where people believe in it. Implementingvincing people, human not controlling rights meansthe themfriend, con­ with not sanctions.the foe. IfFreedomever dom freedom befails. is Specifically,felt to be thea threat, waycontributes missionariesfree­ to theuse way their their freedom freedom will grow—or cease. gious freedom in particular were endangered only by the state, the government to be their ally goodin defending against that infringements which is right fromby otherand this people. position Soto another—ait is only a stepposition that asserts the right to some feel it is their right to maintainceived threattheir comingreligion notfree fromofany government, per­ but rather from another dom—a part not to be forgotten.or override Nor should other itparts. improperly Religioussomething prevail freedom deep. is Religioussomething freedombroad, means to pray and to preach, to freedom also means gaining followers, growing the flock. When raise their children in their ownmental religion threats, not butonly also free free of whichofgovern­ action might taken result by otherin the religions alienation oftheir children. Moreover, religion itself—one that is richtempting. and powerful To understand and persuasively this derstanddoes not justismean theto agreefirst step with in it; searchto un­ofa common perspective. act according to belief. Religiousand schools,freedom tomeans have runningone’s placeone hospitals whoin private wishes and to doin public.so may It livemeans in quiet peace. And religiousone decides to help religious freedom grow one must see lytism,on the one possibility is the development ofa code ofconduct. horizon the whole range ofpossibilities. With regardto prose­But for any such code to flourish,protection to be ofofusereligious to society freedom, peopleforthe it mustit will be impact.developed by the very Experts, San Lorenzo de El Escorial, Spain, May 1999. IDES ET IBERTAS

|L J 2000 Proselytism and Religious Freedom in Spanish Law

Agustin Motilla

Professor of Law University of Carlos III Madrid

(1) Safeguarding the right to free expression of religious belief and thought. This analysis of proselytism and Spanish law begins with the Constitution of 1978 which clearly placed Spain’s democratic values in the West. The safeguarding of human rights—freedom and equality for every individual and for all groups—became, and continues to be, the main piece of the politi­ cal system. Spanish law guarantees freedom of expression in two ways that provide full protection in the courts: Internationally through Spain’s ratification of the international covenants on human rights— universal1 and European;' and domestically through the Constitution and laws and statutes. The Constitution assigns a double role to the international instruments. They are part of Spanish law and as such they should be directly applied by the courts and by civil servants (Article 96.1). Within the Constitution, they also play an interpretive role regarding human rights (Article 10.2) because they have the same force as domestic laws and statutes derived from the Constitution. This has the effect of avoid­ ing contradictions in legal texts. Regarding the issue of proselytism, the Spanish Constitution proclaims “the right to freely express and disseminate thoughts, ideas, and opinions by word, in writing, or by other means of com­ munication” and guarantees that “the exercise of these rights may not be restricted by any form of prior censorship” (Article 20.1 and 20.2). In the realm of religious belief, Article 16.1 generically guar­ antees “freedom of ideology, religion, and worship of individuals and communities.” This right is developed by the General Act of Religious Liberty (July 5, 1980). Essential to the right of religious freedom are the right of “change or relinquishment of their faith,” the right to “freely express their own religious beliefs or lack thereof, [or] from making any statement in such regard,” and the right to “receive and give religious teaching and information of any FID ES ET kind, orally, in writing, or any other means.” Churches have the LIBERTAS right “to promulgate and propagate their beliefs ...” (Article 2). 2000

69 As with all other fundamental rights, the right of religious freedom does have its limits. Article 16.1 of the Constitution states a single restriction: It “may be necessary to maintain public order as protected by law.” Article 3.1 of the General Act of Religious Liberty treats the concept of public order similarly to the interna­ tional covenants by defining the elements of public order as “the right of others to practice their public freedoms and fundamental rights of public safety, health, or morality.” With regard to the eventual determination of proselytism as “illicit,” Article 2.1.b of the General Act of Religious Liberty refers to the right “to be free from any obligation to receive spiritual support or participate in re­ ligious services that are contrary to their personal convictions.”

(2) Punishing illicit proselytism. Through the centuries that Roman Catholicism was the religion of the state, the Catholic Church, with state support, punished any person who held to a doc­ trine or a thought the church considered heretical—against the offi­ cial teaching of the church. At the beginning of the 19th century, special courts continued to consider “religious offenses,” submit­ ting the country to a narrow view of Catholic orthodoxy and clos­ ing it to liberal and secular views prevalent in Western societies since the 17th century. The Penal Codes of the 19th and 20th cen­ turies prohibited the expression of doctrines opposing Catholic dogmas. There was one brief exception: the Second Republic’s Penal Code of 1932. But during the Bourbon Restoration and the regime of General Franco, the Church of Rome was Spain’s estab­ lished church. Accordingly, the state banned all public worship and activities of other religious groups. The Franco regime did not count propagation of non-Catholic religious views as a penal of­ fense, but as a misdemeanor against public order punishable by fine. Generally speaking, until 1967 all external activities of non- Catholic groups were considered “illicit proselytism” subject to governmental sanctions. The first small recognition of conditional religious freedom for certain religious groups came when the government issued the Religious Liberties Act of June 28, 1967. It allowed external activ­ ities of non-Catholic groups— including the expression of belief, but only with the limits of Catholic dogma or morality. For the first time, “illicit proselytism” was specifically defined and distin­ guished from “licit proselytism” as practiced by the non-Catholic groups and now protected by the law. Article 2.2 stated: “Those

FID ES ET acts shall be considered specially dangerous which, in any way, re­ LIBERTAS sort to physical or moral coercion, threat, gifts or promises, deceit, 2000 invasion of family privacy, or other illegitimate means of persua-

70 sion, in order to obtain followers for a certain belief or religious group, or for the diversion to other religions or beliefs.” Directly resulting from this new law was the creation and defi­ nition of a new crime listed in the Spanish Penal Code. ’ In 1971 the Penal Code was amended in an effort to conform it to the 1967 Religious Liberties Act. A new Article 205 was enacted which set punishment for “those who force or prevent the attendance to a religious worship by threat, violence, or any other legal constraint” (Paragraph 1) and “those who . .. use ... threat, violence, gifts, or promises, in order to obtain followers for a certain belief or reli­ gious group, or for the diversion to other religions or beliefs” (Paragraph 2). The crime of illicit proselytism as defined in Paragraph 2 is thus a special crime carrying a higher sentence against those who make threats or use coercion. Thus far, scholars have not considered critically whether this crime, with few varia­ tions, is actually being perpetrated. For certain, the Penal Code Reform of 1983 provided for the punishment of the illicit proselytism of “those who [using the same means as referred to in the first paragraph: violence, intimidation, force, or any other illegal constraint] force another or others to prac­ tice or attend acts of worship, or to perform acts revealing the pro­ fession or otherwise, of a religion, or to change their religious beliefs” (Article 205.2). This last phrase—“forcefd] to change their religious beliefs”—has been identified by scholars as “illicit prose­ lytism.” Regarding the “means” of the crime (essentially they are the reasons for legal sanctions), Article 205.2 eliminated the “gifts or deceit” that had appeared in the 1971 version. Legislatively, this must be considered a positive action because the inherent difficul­ ties in precisely defining “gifts or deceit” as a crime jeopardized cit­ izen security.4 In the opinion of many scholars,5 however, the law served to protect the individual—believer or nonbeliever—from physical aggression against his or her freedom. “Violence” or “in­ timidation” must be understood in a restrictive way. So the law does not cover eventual attacks on internal freedom by, among other methods, mental control, the use of narcotics, and hypnosis. This then is a legal loophole. But these methods could be punished by application of the common penal definition of “threats or coercion.” Spanish society worries about the actions of the “new religious movements” (NRMs), often pejoratively described as “dangerous cults or sects.” A common accusation against these groups is that they gain followers by manipulation of conscience. Thus the 1995

Penal Code, which already defined physical coercion as a method of FID ES ET illicit proselytism, added provisions for dealing with religious LIBERTAS groups which use violence and alteration or control of personality. 2000

71 Without doubt, (3) Court cases involving illicit proselytism. On December 21, 1989, the Barcelona Provincial Court con­ 72 forms ofcriminal proselytization is remarkably important. It is clear no convictions ofany person accused ofcompelling another person sonal opinions about beliefsystems and to recognize the difficulties (With regard to the earlier regulation criminalizing individual illicitOverall, the inclusion oftechniques ofmental manipulation as that this crime has its roots in the andsocial “sects.” controversy As Article over 515.3“cults” states: be considered “[IJllicit associations. . .. fas] those for.. that, licit purposes,despiteshall having use beenviolent established meanscontrol or personalityto achieve alteration[their] purposes.” or But the wide meaning oftheand the presumption ofinnocence ofboth individuals and groups.ofpsychiatrists—testimony I thatsimply tends to because be variable ofthe and unmeasurable subjective subject psychiatrists deal with:stitutions that interpret these imprecise terms and apply the punish­courts have dealt with cases ofillicit proselytism. there is one meaningful fact in thisproselytism issue: Since became 1971, a whencrime illicitin Spain, there have been no trials toand change his or her religion—toMany convert are tothe a differentreasons forreligion. this, butficult one to isprove particularly that the clear:conversions It is dif­methods were effected punishable by the by uselaw: ofviolence or physical coercion. Thereconvicted under Article 515.3. Onecontinues can only to hopesupport that court as societydecisions based on fact rather than per­inherent in proving the existence ofmanipulation ofconscience, injury to their followers, the courtsless finddid them not try guilty the leaders,ofillicit much proselytism, such crime, threat, and control, holdthem or anyresponsible for damages. In penal law,criminal responsibility ofan individual belonging to a religious society to be a “cult” or a “sect.” proselytism, the present regulation has not really changed.)6 terms “personality alteration or control” places at risk the securitythink that the decisions ofthe courts will depend on the testimony the human mind. In the end, Spain’s courts justiceof will be thement. in­ Therefore it is important forus to consider now how the that this “crime” will remain unprosecuted.prising indeed Nevertheless, that in certain it is cases,sur­religious while theleaders courts exercised established mental that control over and causedpsychic psychic control is only taken into account in order to attenuate thegroup.7 This principle is an advantageunder to a thedefendant pressure who of theacted leader ofa religious group considered by just has not been enough time to discover ifany NRM could be IDES ET IBERTAS

IL J 2000 victed several male members of the Rashimura group of falsifying a public document.8 In the Civil Register the defendants were recorded as the fathers of their children, but evidence presented during the trial proved that the children had been conceived by the leader, Rashimura. The court applied a partial exemption on the grounds of mental alienation and reduced the sentences. In the opinion of the court, “... [T]he accused suffered what science calls ‘coactive persuasion syndrome.’ Because of the intensive teaching to which they had submitted themselves, they had a highly altered perception of themselves and their relationship to society. They got to that state through a program of continuous oral instruction and deprivation of both food and sleep. All of this significantly altered their intellectual and volitional faculties....” In another case in Barcelona (July 16, 1990),9 the court ex­ empted members of the Esoteric Research Center (the leaders of which were imprisoned for “professional intrusion” and “coopera­ tion with crimes of prostitution”) because of “the situation of abso­ lute dependence and mental control the CEIS leaders held over them.” Said the court: “[On the basis] of the most absolute mental annulment through the use of control techniques, it seems evident [that there] exists the abuse by superiority as a coactive practice to [convince] a person to prostitute himself.” Among other cases is one from a Madrid court (October 31, 1990)10 which absolved two members of the Church of Scientology of stealing. The court concluded that “the proven evidence . . . [is] a consequence of many crimes committed by individuals belonging to Dianetics/Scientology and its affiliate organizations, resulting in (as the witness in the oral argument has testified) not only mental blockage, disconnection from reality, and rejection of everything foreign or external to the organization, but also bribery, extortion, rape, sequestration, robbery, theft of public documents, forgery, confidence games, and false accusations and charges.” The following observation, therefore, cannot be ruled out: In these decisions the judges may have been influenced by societal suspicions that at least some of the new religious movements com­ pel totalitarian submission to the leader, gather funds by dubious means, and use techniques of mind control to weaken the will of their followers. Such suspicions do apply to the traditional churches. Therefore they reflect prejudice. And if judges let preju­ dice influence their decisions, they are not impartial in their func­ tion. As institutions of a secular state, courts are prohibited from giving more or less judicial weight to the doctrines or beliefs of FID ES ET some religious groups than to others. To do so can lead to deci­ LIBERTAS sions that are not based on the proven facts of the case. An exam- 2000

73 As (4) Final considerations on illicit proselytism as a crime. First, Spain would be guilty ofdiscrimination ifit punished in- 74 from the arm ofan unconscious and hemorrhaging female . . may. provoke, and in fact has provoked, the loss ofthe will and pie is found in a Supreme Court ruling delivered March 27, 1990." A male Jehovah’s Witness removed the blood transfusionJehovah’s line Witness and preventedment. theThe hospital woman fromdied. furtherThe manslaughter.court treat­ found the Butman the guilty court’s ofconsideration decision indicated ofthe thatbelief thejudges’ systemmitigation: ofthe Witnesses“The dogmatism had prompted and inflexibility oftheir moralscience frame­ and the right to life. The radical [nature] ofthese beliefs ized by a psychological disturbancecapacity that to bereduces culpable.” the individual’sIn my opinion, the court’s decision was systems. The logical extension ofthe court’s decision is to con­ work ... gives ... an absolute valuethat ... authorize theover sacrifice the freedom of, or put of at con­risk, the lives ofworshipersthe confusion ofthe mind, and may lead to a situation character­ based on a pejorative misunderstandingWitnesses. ofThusthe beliefsit violated of theagainstJehovah’s rules placing of a secular valuejudgments state and the onban citizens’ ideology andclude belief that every crime committedconscience on the willbasis be ofmitigatedsolid reasons in terms of of personal responsibility. we have seen, freedom to expressnized byone’s Spanish own ideaslaw. isIt aisright tionalin the recog­ Constitution,covenants ratifiedit is in by the theLiberty interna­state. Accordingly,Act states that the divulgence Religiousmental of elementreligious of beliefsthe constitutional is awith funda­ other right rights, ofreligious it has its freedom.limits—limitsrestrictively As whichand applied must beto thefinedinterpreted least by numberlaw. In order ofcircumstances to safeguard thede­ rights ofthird persons ishable not tocrime the use ofcertain vidual methods religious to effect beliefs. a changeThe current in indi­ Penal Code not onlyconscience retains control ormanipulation employed by some groups.media andThe social opinion attribute to “sects” and “cults.” coercion,It is clear physical force, mindHow control, then canbut wenotjustify the spread the licit existenceof proselytismideas. ofthe specificas a more crime serious of il­ offense when compared to other be aggressively proselytized, Franco’s penal code defined as a pun­ that crime, but enlarges its sphere, aiming to combat the newpatterns Article of 515.3 clearly goes to the repression ofthe actionsthat Spanishmass law and international law intend to punish methods— common crimes? IDES ET IBERTAS

Ll J 2000 dividuals for religious reasons more severely than it does for politi­ cal, ideological, or commercial reasons. In Western society, we know, for example, all about the pressures one can bear in order to belong to a political party or a trade union, or to vote in an elec­ tion, or, simply, to buy certain goods. If we defend the freedom and the autonomy of the individual, every such violation in every field should be similarly punished. Moreover, from my own point of view, the existence of a spe­ cific crime of illicit proselytism has other dangers and disadvantages: (1) The present Penal Code of Spain, following the European Court’s interpretation of Article 7 of the European Convention, says that crimes must be clearly defined by the law. There is no doubt that terms such as “change the beliefs” or “illegal constraint” in Article 522.2, or “personality alteration or control” in Article 515.3, give governmental authorities and judges wide discretion in the application of the law—and, therefore, great reduction in the security of citizens. We must think seriously about the difficulty in drawing a distinguishing line between “an intensive apostolate” and real mental coercion. We must clearly recognize the difficul­ ties inherent in presenting as evidence such indeterminate elements as mental coercion and personality control. (2) Within the law’s discrete use of the terms, and under the in­ fluence of public opinion that blames religious denominations distant from Western Christianity, it is possible that judges might use the crime of illicit proselytism as the method of stopping the spread of NRMs in order to preserve the consciences of the majority of citi­ zens who belong to the traditional religious communities. We cannot forget, as Iban has stated, that in Europe—and in Spain, “The one who determines which are the beliefs that should not be attacked ... is a legislator—or, if we want, a judge, a politician, a society—and, essentially, Christian. It is extremely improbable that he could be so objective as to be able to give a different treatment to different reli­ gious realities based on their objective diversities, but on his subjec­ tive perception of those diversities. This is a phenomenon we must worry about with regard to the defense of freedom....” 12 We are living in a social climate more and more nervous about the so-called “sects:” Let us remember the recent parliamentary lists of sects in Belgium and France. I am concerned about the danger the “crime of illicit proselytism,” as it is currently defined in Spanish law, presents to minority religious groups. As we have stated, it could be used to value beliefs. Cases outside of Spain prove this is a real problem, not an imagined one. Most of the countries that have enacted laws FID ES ET against “illicit proselytism” have established churches—and they LIBERTAS have used those laws to protect majoritarian belief systems against 2000

75 minority religious groups or denominations.13 (3) Since secular states ought not to indulge in value judg­ ments of individual ideologies or beliefs, and since good principles of penal law hold that the least intervention is the best, reserving only those measures absolutely necessary to repress criminal ac­ tion, illicit proselytism as a crime should just disappear. But if these theoretical reasons were not enough, there is also a practical argument towards the abrogation of illicit proselytism as a crime. In Spain the law against illicit proselytism has not been applied to a single case in the 30 years since its enactment. The need for Spain to have a realistic penal code should push legislators to re­ peal those laws regarding crimes that have not been committed. Such laws have no use. The punishment of the illicit conduct of proselytism—the use of illegal methods such as force and coer­ cion— should continue to be applied to common crimes without re­ gard to the kind of idea or belief behind the conduct.

Notes and references: 1 The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was ratified in 1950, and the ad­ ditional Protocols Nos. 3, 5, and 6 in 1963 and 1966. The International Covenant on Civil, Political, Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights was ratified in 1977. 2 Instrument of ratification of September 26, 1972. With regard to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of November 4, 1950, and its additional Protocols Nos. 3 and 5: Instruments of ratification of 1963 and 1966. 3 On its history and meaning, see Perez-Madrid: La tutela penal del factor reli­ gioso en el Derecho español (Pamplona: Eunsa, 1995), p. 179; and Rossell Granados: Religion y jurisprudencia penal (Un estudio de la jurisprudencia de la Sala T del Tribunal Supremo en el periodo 1930-1995) (Madrid: Editorial Complutense, 1996), pp. 180,210. 4 See De Otaduy: “La tutela penal del derecho de libertad religiosa,” in Tratado de Derecho Eclesiástico del Estado (Pamplona: Eunsa, 1994), p. 535. 5 See Bueno: “El ámbito de ammparo del derecho de libertad religiosa y las asociaciones,” in Anuario de Derecho Eclesiástico del Estado, /(1985), p. 199; Fernandez Coronado: “La tutela penal de la libertad religiosa,” in Anuario de Derecho Eclesiástico del Estado, 7/(1986), p. 46; Agustín Motilla: Sectas y Derecho en España: Un estudio en torno a la posición de los nuevos movimientos religiosos en el Derecho español (Madrid: Edersa, 1990), p. 192; Tamarit: “Las sec­ tas y el Derecho Penal,” in Aspectos socio-jurídicos de las sectas desde una per­ spectiva comparada (Vitoria: Onati International Institute for the Sociology of Law, 1991), p. 243. On the contrary, see Lopez Alarcon: “Tutela de la libertad religiosa,” in Derecho Eclesiástico del Estado (Pamplona: Eunsa, 1993), p. 557; López Alarcon: “Las sectas y los nuevos movimientos religiosos (NMRs): Problemas de su tratamiento jurídico: Reconocimiento o prohibición?” in lus Cononicum, 74 (1997), p. 480; Perez-Madrid: Op. cit. (in Note 3), p. 195. FID ES ET 6 New Article 522.2 of the Spanish Penal Code states: “The following persons LIBERTAS shall incur penalties of four to six months ... 2. Those who, through the use of the same means— violence, intimidation, force, or any other illegal constraint— force an­ 2000 other or others to practice or attend acts of worship or rites, or to perform acts reveal-

76 ing the profession or otherwise of a religion, or to change their religious beliefs.” 7 We are talking about criminal law because it is more relevant to the issue of illicit proselytism. But that does not exclude the incidence in jurisprudence of indi­ vidual mental control of a follower of an NRM in other branches of law. Thus, on September 13, 1982, a First Degree Court, considering circumstances of depen­ dency and lack of individual autonomy within a group, annulled the marriage of two members of the Hare Krishna movement: . . [W]e understand there is a cause of nullity because of the lack of matrimonial consent. In those moments the couple were depersonalized and unable to understand and wish. They acted as robots with­ out critically evaluating how serious and important an act marriage is, and with the total lack of freedom in their mental faculties to discharge their matrimonial aims. . . .” See the decision in II Diritto Ecclesiastico, II (1990), pp. 329-333. 8 II Diritto Ecclesiastico, II (1990), pp. 314-320. 9 Ibid., pp. 293-307. 111 See the decision in the Appendix of my paper “Grupos marginales y libertad religiosa: los nuevos movimientos religiosos ante los tribunales de justica,” in Annuario de Derecho Eclesiástico del Estado, IX (1993), pp. 125-131. " Repertorio de Jurisprudencia Aranzadi, No. 2, p. 626. 12 Iban: “Tolerancia y libertad religiosa en la Europa occidental,” in Quaderni di Diritto e Política Ecclesiasitica, 1 (1997), p. 200. 13 For an example in Greek law, consider the statements of Judges Petit and Martens in their dissenting opinions in Kokkinakis v. Greece (European Court, May 25, 1993).

FID ES ET LIBERTAS 2000

77 Religious Freedom in Russia: The Necessity for Stability

Vladimir Ryakhovsky

Co-chairman, Slavic Center for Law and Justice Moscow

I am comfortable with the assumption that, notwithstanding their different views of religious doctrine, the readers of Fides et Libertas are basically one in the general understanding that reli­ gious freedom is a fundamental human right. But unfortunately, it is necessary for us to repeatedly proclaim this principle. Here at the beginning of the 21st century, we must say again and again that freedom must be protected. Freedom is a gift of God. Humankind was created free. It was by the Creator’s own freedom of choice that humankind was cre­ ated in the likeness of God. Freedom of conscience is a gift of God. It is neither a benefit of the state nor a present from a political regime. But protection of freedom of conscience is a duty of the state. No one need feel an obligation to thank the government for his or her rights not being violated. The government exists to defend those rights. If it fails to do so, it is rightly described as a totalitarian, anti-people regime. Freedom cannot be measured in terms of too much or too lit­ tle. One cannot be relatively free; either one is free or one is not. One cannot say that a particular group or people is free, or some denominations are free, even when the talk is about the majority. It simply means that there is no freedom for all. Freedom is not only a right but a duty. In order for an indi­ vidual to have personal freedom, one is duty-bound to respect the religious choice of another even when he or she cannot agree with it. If today a Krishna is persecuted and a temple destroyed and I am silent because I do not accept the teaching of Krishna, or if today a Seventh-day Adventist church is demolished in Turkmenistan and I say nothing because I am not a Seventh-day Adventist, then, inescapably, tomorrow I will be persecuted and my chapel destroyed, and nobody will come to my defense. History records many such examples. In Germany during the FID ES ET 1930s democratic institutions were destroyed one by one. This is LIBERTAS why today I, as a member of a Pentecostal church, defend the 2000 rights of Adventists. Their rights are my rights as well. This is

78 why I defend the rights of the Hare Krishna. I cannot share in their religious choice, but I do share in their rights for they are mine too.

* Let me now turn to Russia. In many ways stability in Russia defines stability in the entire world. We have not forgotten how during that period of 70 years five-sixths of the world viewed the remaining one-sixth with fear as the U.S.S.R. tried to force its ide­ ology on everyone else. Remember the cold war? Remember World War II when two totalitarian regimes did not succeed in di­ viding the world? This is why democratic institutions in Russia are not only a Russian issue, but a concern everywhere for everyone. And if today we talk about creating democracy in Russia, we are not interfering in Russia’s internal affairs. Human rights and human freedoms are not any state’s strictly internal affair. As the 1980s ended Russia ended a period of religious perse­ cution. Millions of citizens of my country were victims of political repression. For me this is not an abstract tragedy. Religious perse­ cution touched my family intimately. My father, a Pentecostal bishop, was convicted three times for sharing his faith: once during Stalin, then during Khrushchev, and again during Brezhnev. His 1950 sentence was for “expressing his religious convictions and his doubt in the constructing of communism in a socialistic vil­ lage.” My father’s life and experience predefined my own choice of a profession: defending the rights of believers. In 1990 Russia passed its first religious liberty law—“On Freedom of Religion.” In 1993 the new Constitution proclaimed the principles of freedom of conscience and equity of religious as­ sociations before the law. This gave a powerful boost to citizens’ religious activity. Many churches emerged from the underground; new churches and missions were created. But today we express our concern not only for freedom of conscience as a principle, but for the fate of other democratic insti­ tutions in Russia. Certain groups are striving to return the nation to one leading ideology. Their method is not communism; it is na­ tionalism and the establishment of one religion. In 1997 Russia adopted a new act dealing with the freedom of conscience and reli­ gious associations. Many of its provisions are contrary to the Constitution and to the accepted norms of international law on human rights. Furthermore, the “new” act contains other controver­ sial elements which allow arbitrary interpretations at the local level

of government. Application of this law results in violations of the FID ES ET rights of believers. At the federal level it is sometimes possible to LIBERTAS resolve these contradictions, but out in the vast regions of Russia 2000

79 * Forthe first time a Russian has appealed to the European Although Lutherans have a 400-year history in Russia, they In the city ofMagadan, in northeastern Siberia on the coast of Created in 1998, the Slavic Center for Law and Justice com­ 80 Supreme Court denied her appeal for restoration to her position. ignated to finance the charitable projects ofa church in Magadan. Pentecostal church then appealed to the U.S. Embassy for political Court ofHuman Rights for hervolves religious judgea freedom. from the Thecity case ofply Noyabrskbecausein­ shewho is wasa member dismissed ofa Pentecostalsim­ church. Russia’sThe center will now represent her before the European Court. have faced exclusion in the internal Republic ofKhakassia because They declined to do so. The procuratorsdissolve the thenchurch requested altogether. theJustice Thecourt came Slavicto to Center the defense for Law of theand Khakassia Lutherans—and won. declare the entire sum ofmoney. He stated that the funds Ordinarilywere des­ the fine for such a factviolation that he amountswas a foreignto U.S.$10. missionary But the defined the undeclaredable moneyby a prison term ofup to ten years. I am thankful to reportsuccessfully that defended a PentecostalThe local church procurator three times(or prosecutor) in hypnosisone year. accused to attract the newchurch members, ofhealth.using a The procedure absurdity harmful ofthe to accusationsgood was exposed whenence thewould it be possible forthan him theor herRussian to choose Orthodox a church Church. other Some 600 members asylum.ofthe The accusations were subsequently withdrawn. fortable jury.is a Let me report on a few ofour recent cases. Law. The main purpose ofthe SCLJ is to defend individual freedom there the church is under 15 procuratorsin years of establishment.ordered the members The local to stop their missionary work. the Sea ofOkhotsk, I representedaccused an ofAmericancarrying Baptistundeclared missionarydue toU.S. the currency.very serious In court criminal he saidsituation that in Russia he was afraid to as contraband. Carrying contraband is a criminal offense,the punish­ court acquitted the American missionary. Also in Magadan, we procurator declared that only ifa person were under hypnotic influ­ associations. In my role as co-chairman,politician I am a or a theoretician. practitioner, The audiencenot a with which I am most com­ we are confronted by intransigent arbitrariness. prises the Christian Legal Center and the Institute ofReligion and ofconscience and to provide legal assistancetions. We to differreligious from organiza­ other RussianNGOs arena in inthat the religious we actually freedom litigate in behalfofbelievers and religious IDES ET IBERTAS

IL J 2000 Finally, the Slavic Center for Law and Justice is planning to open a museum of religious freedom. Its purpose: To remind one and all of the dark pages in our country’s history and to warn the new generation never to return to the past.

Adapted and edited from an address Mr. Ryakhovsky presented at the IRLA World Conference, New Delhi, November 1999.

FID ES ET LIBERTAS 2000

81 Legal Provisions for Proselytism in the United States

Mitchell A. Tyner

Legal Counsel International Religious Liberty Association

Associate General Counsel General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists Silver Spring, Maryland, U.S.A.

Is there freedom to proselytize in the United States? The short answer: “Of course there is.” But as usual, the short answer misses some important nuances. Freedom to proselytize involves at least two facets: the free­ dom to change one’s religion and the freedom to urge another, by effective means, to change his or her religion. The first has long been established in American constitutional jurisprudence. The second is the subject of ongoing struggle as it is far more threaten­ ing to majoritarian impulse and established interests. No American law or court decision overtly states that Americans have the right to change their religious views. It is an application of the entrenched principle that government must be neutral in religious matters and must treat all religions equally. Perhaps the earliest Supreme Court enunciation of this princi­ ple came in a church property dispute where the court was asked to rule as to which group constituted the rightful owners based on ad­ herence to true doctrine. Way back in 1872 the court said: “The law knows no heresy, and is committed to the support of no dogma, the establishment of no sect.” 1 Religion “should flourish according to the zeal of its adherents and the appeal of its dogma,”2 without the influence of government. In a 1944 case in which a man was accused of fraud by dis­ semination of religious doctrines he allegedly knew to be false, the court stated: Freedom of thought, which includes freedom of religious belief, is basic in a society of free men. It embraces the right to maintain theories of life and of death and of the hereafter which are rank heresy to follow­ ers of the orthodox faiths. Heresy trials are foreign to our Constitution. FID ES ET Men may believe what they cannot prove. They may not be put to the LIBERTAS proof of their religious doctrines or beliefs. . . . The Fathers of our Constitution . . . fashioned a charter of government which envisaged the 2000 widest possible toleration of conflicting views. Man’s relation to his God

82 was made no concern of the state. He was granted the right to worship as he pleased and to answer to no man for the verity of his religious views.3 In what has been described as its finest hour, from a religious freedom point of view, the Supreme Court, in the midst of World War II, held that children of Jehovah’s Witnesses could not be forced to participate in a pledge of allegiance which they consid­ ered religiously repugnant. Justice Jackson wrote for the majority: The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain sub­ jects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal princi­ ples to be applied by the courts. One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no election. We can have intellectual individualism and the rich cultural diver­ sities that we owe to exceptional minds only at the price of occasional eccentricity and abnormal attitudes. .. . Freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of free­ dom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order. If there is a fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in poli­ tics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion, or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. If there are any circum­ stances which would permit an exception, they do not now occur to us.4 A more modern statement of the right to change one’s reli­ gion may be found in the 1987 case Hobbie v. Unemployment Appeals Commission of Florida.5 After working 2 / years for the Lawton Jewelry Company, Paula Hobbie informed her employer that she had become a Seventh-day Adventist and thus was no longer able to work on her Sabbath—from sunset Friday to sun­ set Saturday. Although she and the store manager were able to work out a mutually satisfactory arrangement for coverage, upper management fired Hobbie for her refusal to work when scheduled. The employer also contested Hobbie’s application for unemployment benefits on the ground that she was disquali­ fied, having been discharged for misconduct connected with her work. The case appeared to be controlled by earlier Supreme Court decisions holding that one could not be denied generally available governmental unemployment benefits because of conduct man­ dated by or forbidden by religious belief. In Sherbert v. Verner (1963), a Seventh-day Adventist lost her job because she would not work on the Sabbath, and was subsequently denied unemploy­ ment benefits because she was not available for work, as required FID ES ET by South Carolina statute. The Supreme Court ruled that such a de­ LIBERTAS nial was the equivalent of a tax on her religion.6 In 1981 the court was asked to reconsider this ruling. Eddie 2000

83 the employees held their reli­ Thomas, and the state ofFlorida attempted to distinguish the Sherbert is significant because it involves something that gov­ In effect, the Appeals Commission asks us to single out the reli­ Hobbie, In gious convert for different,dividual less favorable whose treatmentadherence than declineto his that or togiven her do faith anso. The precedesin­ First Amendmentemployment. protectsWe the free exercise rights of Not relevant, said the court: employees who adopt religiousother beliefs after they or convert are hired. from rialThe one totiming ourfaith determinationof to an­Hobbie’s conversion thatthe her salient free is exercise inquiryimmate­ underrights the have Free been Exercise burdened; Clause is the burden involved. The foregoing notwithstanding, another thread, constant in Hobbie A chain ofcases beginning in 1938 rejected numerous at­ 84 in part because other Jehovah’s Witnesses similarly employedquested did benefits.7 gious beliefs at the time they were hired. Subsequent changesconflict in between work and belief. But, Florida argued, Hobbie’sconflict that had not previously existed and was not ofthe ableem­ benefits because she changed her religion. [First] Amendment embraces two concepts—freedom to believe Thomas, a Jehovah’s Witness,When worked production for an Indianaslowed, steelhevolved foundmill. thatmilitary all remaining armament—work workto him. in­ thatHe was quit religiously hisjob—and unacceptable was denied unemployment notbenefits, resign. Citing Sherbert, the court awarded Thomas the re­ previous cases by emphasizingchange.” that Hobbie In was the “agent of the conditions ofemployment made by the employer causedbeliefs the changed during the course ofher employment, creating a ernments—and most other organizations—hold dear: the expendi­ funds. The first part ofthe proselytization equation—the freedom and freedom to act. The first is absolute, but in the nature ofthings, subject ofan unlimited freedom. How has this second part ofthe court ruled that an ordinance prohibiting the distribution oflitera­ ployer’s making. In essence, she should be denied otherwise avail­ ture offunds. The right to changevalue asone’s to bereligion allowed is toof trumpsufficient an appeal to conserve governmentto change one’s religion—is secure. American case law on religious freedom, must be recognized. “The the second cannot be.”8 The questionsecond part involves ofthe proselytizationurging others,gious by views. effective This means, is “action,” to change not reli­“belief,” and therefore rightnot the to proselytize fared in American life? tempts to restrict the sort ofnecessarypublic advocacy for effective ofreligious proselytization. belief In the first ofthis group,ture ofthe any kind is an unconstitutional abridgement ofthe freedom IDES ET IBERTAS

IL J 2000 of the press.9 The following year the court held that an ordinance making it unlawful to distribute handbills on a sidewalk, street, or other public place is unconstitutional.11 In its famous Cantwell v. Connecticut decision (1940), the court held that a state may not unduly suppress communication of religious views under the guise of conserving public peace or de­ ciding what is a legitimate religion for solicitation purposes. This decision for the first time expressly applied the Free Exercise Clause to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.11 But religious advocacy did not always win. As World War II began, the court ruled that it is not unconstitutional to charge a pa­ rade or assembly fee limited to the purpose of meeting the expense incident to administration of licensing and the maintenance of pub­ lic order. The authority of a municipality to impose regulations in order to assure safety in the use of public space is not inconsistent with civil liberties.1' City ordinances designed to intimidate the dissemination of unpopular religious opinion did not fare well during this period. In 1943 alone, the court decided cases involving five such ordi­ nances. It held that an ordinance prohibiting the dissemination of handbills on public property is unconstitutional;1 ’ that an ordi­ nance prohibiting all distribution of handbills is unconstitu­ tional;14 that a state may not prohibit the distribution of handbills in pursuit of a religious activity because the handbills seek to raise funds in a lawful manner, because, even if the ordinance were non-discriminatory, liberties guaranteed by the First Amendment are in a preferred position;15 that the mere fact that religious literature is sold by itinerant preachers rather than given away does not transform evangelism into a commercial enterprise subject to regulation;16 and that an ordinance forbid­ ding door-to-door distribution of handbills, circulars, or other advertising matter is unconstitutional.17 The court, in 1944, demonstrated one of the reasons for which religious freedom may properly be curtailed: the protection of mi­ nors. It held that a statute forbidding boys under 12 and girls under 18 to sell magazines on a street or in a public place is not an un­ constitutional denial of the free exercise of religion.15 But it also ruled that a flat tax on a minister distributing religious material was not constitutionally acceptable.19 As the war ended, the court took up the question of how these rulings should be applied on private property. It held that the more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the FID ES ET general public, the more his rights become circumscribed by the LIBERTAS First Amendment rights of those who use the property.20 The court 2000

85 Basically, these cases state the law as it stands today: require­ But not all methods ofproselytization are permissible. It de­ More recently, the court has narrowed the protection ofprose­ The challenges continue, especially for minority and/or un­ 86 Religious activities must be allowed, but may be subject to restric­ cants and users. Many decisions through the years have held that ment ofa permit will be upheld ifit is subject to objectivemay criteria, not be issued such a permit.sible Aif feeit only for reflects such a thepermit cost isof permis­processing the application, and is lytizing activities by allowing the prohibition ofthe sale or distri­ pends on the existence ofobjective standards applicable to all appli­overly loud sound amplification bycurtailed. evangelists But, maysaid theproperly court, be in thenance absence prohibiting ofstandards, all use anof ordi­sound fringes amplification the right equipmentoffree thespeech;22 in­ lack ofofstandardslicenses rendersin the issuingthe practice open to discrimination contrary toordinances which require that permitscials forbe theobtained use of publicfrom localplaces offi­ ofarenarrowly unconstitutional drawn, reasonable,in the absence andordinance definite leaving standards.24 But anofficials no discretion in granting permits for also invalidated a statute prohibitinggovernment-owned distribution town.21ofliterature in a is likely subject to the most consistent manifestations ofintoler­ Islamic center for Muslim students in a residential neighborhood rather than leaving discretion to officials as to who may and who not so high in cost as to make the desired activity impossible.tions on time, place, and manner.the proselytizationWithin reason, equation the second beis alsogiven half secure: ofthe opportunityreligious people to usechange musteffective religious means belief to urgeand others affiliation. to bution ofall written materials on a fairground.26 Although it ruled isfy a reasonableness standard.28 the rights ofboth free speech and free exercise of religion;23 and conducting religious meetings in public areas was upheld.25 popular religions. Ofthe major religions in the United States,ance. IslamIn the late 1980s Muslimsthemselves in Starkville, withjust Mississippi, such a problem.found They sought to establishnear thean university. In that zoningmitted district, only by religiousexception. uses However, eratingwere per­ 25in thehouses district, of worship 16 as non-conforming were op­ uses and nine by that an airport regulation banningwithin all a “Firstpublic Amendment”or non-public the activitiesforum court is alsoa constitutional ruled that an violation,27airportwhere terminala ban on isreligious a non-public handbills forum and solicitation need only sat­ IDES ET IBERTAS IL J exception after the ordinance was adopted. The Islamic center was the only applicant ever denied an exception. A federal district court (upheld on appeal) found that the city could have no compelling interest in denying this exception, while all others—all Christian— had been granted.'0 In the small city of Hastings, Nebraska, a zoning ordinance permitted religious uses in residential areas, but not in the central business district. The city justified the exclusion by its concern for the effects of non-commercial use on the vitality of the commercial district. However, many other non-commercial uses, such as a Masonic lodge, Alcoholics Anonymous, and a pregnancy counsel­ ing center, were permitted in the district. Ruling in favor of a church which challenged the ordinance, a federal court noted: “It is difficult to imagine how a church would displace commercial ac­ tivity any more than a second story apartment, which is permitted.”30 Unspoken was the reality that such an ordinance dis­ proportionately affects new religions which will seek to rent any empty space, as opposed to those religious groups which are al­ ready established in their own places of worship. Perhaps the most flagrant of such cases is that of the Church o f the Babalu Lukumi Aye v. City o f Hialeah. In Lukumi, practitioners of the Santeria faith leased land in Hialeah, Florida, and announced plans to establish a place of worship there. A regular element of their worship is the ritual sacrifice of animals. Subsequently, they cook and eat the animals. Shortly after the Santerians’ announce­ ment, the city adopted several ordinances aimed at prohibiting the sacrifice of animals, but not other types of slaughter. The ordi­ nances were ostensibly based on public health concerns. But the legislative history and strained definitions in the ordinances them­ selves tended to show that the regulations were merely a poorly veiled attempt to keep the Santerians out of Hialeah. Overturning the ordinances, the Supreme Court said: “The neutrality inquiry leads to one conclusion: the ordinances have as their object the suppression of religion. The pattern we have recited discloses ani­ mosity to Santeria adherents and their religious practices.”31 Are these zoning cases really relevant to an inquiry as to the freedom to proselytize? Yes, if such freedom really does include the right to urge others to change belief and to use effective means in doing so. How can an individual or group effectively do this if kept from establishing a meeting place and conducting the rituals of worship, as do all other religious groups? Perhaps the key is in the phrase “as do all other religious FID ES ET groups,” for therein lies a claim not just to freedom, but to equal LIBERTAS freedom. That equality is something the city fathers—and mothers— 2000

87

450 480 U.S. 136 (1987). Reynolds v. United 452 U.S. 640 (1981). 508 U.S. 520 (1993). 482 U.S. 569 (1987). 849 F. 2d 293 (5th Cir. 1988). 948 F. 2d 464 (8th Cir. 1991). 308 U.S. 147 (1939). 345 U.S. 395 (1953). Jewsfor Jesus, Inc., 319 U.S. 105 (1943). 319 U.S. 1178 (1943). 321 U.S. 158 (1944). 310 U.S. 296 (1940). 310 U.S. 296 (1940). See also 322 U.S. 882 (1944). 303 U.S. 444 (1938). 12 U.S. 569 (1941). v. v. 340 U.S. 268 (1951). 321 U.S. 573 (1944). 326 U.S. 501 (1946). 374 U.S. 398 (1963). 319 U.S. 141 (1943). 343 U.S. 306 (1952). 340 U.S. 290 (1951). 334 U.S. 558 (1948). 318 U.S. 413 (1943). 318 U.S. 418 (1943). 319 U.S. 103 (1943). 80 U.S. 131 (1872). Ballard, 326 U.S. 517 (1946). 112 S. Ct. 2701 (1992). v. v. Verner, Texas, Jones, Clausen, UnemploymentAppeals Commission oFlorida, f Texas, InternationalSociety o Krishna f Consciousness, NewHampshire, McCormick, Alabama, City oGriffin, f Struthers, Opelika, v. v. v. v. N ew York, v. v. v. v. v. v. New Hampshire, v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. West Virginia v. Barnette, Watson Thomas v. Review Board, Indiana Employment Security Commission, UnitedStates Tucker Cantwell v. Connecticut, Cox CornerstoneBible Church v. Hastings, Cantwell v. Connecticut, Murdock v. Pennsylvania, Sherbert Schneider v. State oNew f Jersey, Church othe f Babalu LukumiAye v. City oHialeah, f Zorach Heffron Largent Marin Prince v. Massachusetts, Follett Marsh Saia v. New York, Niemotko v. Maryland, Kunz Poulos Islamic Center oStarkville f v. Starkville, Lovell Hobbie Jamison v. Texas, ISKONv. Lee, Airport Commissioners Jones 98 U.S. 145 (1879). Mr. Tyner presented this paper at the IRLA Conference ofExperts, San 1 1 7 7 6 6 8 8 5 5 2 2 3 9 9 4 4 15 15 16 11 11 13 10 10 12 12 14 18 19 17 17 26 26 20 20 21 23 24 28 30 22 22 25 29 27 27 31 31 88 in places like Starkville, Mississippi, and Hialeah, Florida, are evi­ sentatives, that without both a societal and governmental stance of with the understanding ofthe governed, the people and their repre­ Notes and references: dently still not prepared to grant. It is a vocatereminder religiousto all of freedomus who that ad­ the ultimate protection ofour freedom objective equality toward all religions, wherewe have, all areat best, free, buta situation some are certainly more free than others. U.S. 707(1981). States, rests not with courts and legislatures, as important as they are, but Lorenzo de El Escorial, May 1999. IDES ET IBERTAS

Il J 2000 Missionary Activities: Minimizing Adverse Reactions Without Sacrificing Rights to Manifestation

Jonathan Bonk

Director, Overseas Ministries Study Center New Haven, Connecticut, U.S.A.

Editor, International Bulletin of Missionary Research

Here is the question: How can missionary activities be ad­ justed to minimize adverse reactions without sacrificing the right to manifest religious beliefs and practices?

Let me begin by saying that the relationship between the state and those who practice what has come to be called Christianity has, since the very beginning, been a highly ambiguous one—rang­ ing from virtual identification of church with state on one hand, to church as enemy of the state on the other. I address the question as a son of missionary parents—one of whom became an evangelical Christian out of a Polish-Jewish- Catholic-Pentecostal heritage, while the other came to evangelical faith out of a Canadian mutation of Scottish Presbyterianism—and as one who spent his formative years (until the age of 16) in Ethiopia (to which 1 return annually if possible). I respond as the director of a study center that, since 1922, has been a temporary home to Christian missionaries and leaders from every point on the ecclesiastical, geographical, and cultural com­ pass. The persons who reside with us do so voluntarily, despite sometimes formidable obstacles placed in their path by hostile—or simply corrupt— states which demand proprietary rights on the ways in which their subjects identify themselves as human beings. I respond as the editor of the International Bulletin of Missionary Research, a professional academic journal devoted to a sympathetic yet objective analysis and critique of the Christian world mission. The journal seeks to be forthright about the failures and limitations of Christian mission, while at the same time ad­ FID ES ET LIBERTAS vancing an appreciation of the contributions of Christian mission to the world and its peoples. 2000

89

I I respond as one who taught global Christian studies for some I I respond as a Mennonite— as one ofthose whose theology, And I respond as a Canadian—a citizen ofa country whose This background must be considered by those who read this Assumption 1: North America—especially the United Assumption 2: Missionaries tend to be from North In fact, the North American component ofthe global Christian This, in fact, is not the case. Christians numberjust under an 90 people swell with a smug sensepare oftheirsuperiority hockey playerswhenever or they their healthcom­ care plans with thosethe nation’s of charter ofrights “we,” and tofreedoms, be more with communitarian, its emphasisthan theonand perceived hence more obsession humanitarian, espousedwith “me” byin thecompetition United States.with “you” article because, whatevermy response, contribution, my perspectivehowever measured willeven be distorted. necessarilymy Forcolored this I andapologize,Through perhaps but long I see practice no way I haveout oflearned it! that it is much easier to pro­ material to produce light—anddress heat, some of highlycourse. questionableSo then, questionI must assumptions ad­ raised atthat the aretop. implicit to the States—continues to be the heartland ofofself-assuredthe missionary Christianity variety. In 1900 there were an estimated 16,000 missionaries—mostly from 20 years at an interdenominational seminary in Canada. history, and painfully personalprofound experiences agnosticism are the withwellsprings respectprehend toof oraa state’s legislate ability on matters eithergious toof opinion,com­personal opinion,no matter including how well reli­intentioned. their neighbor to the south; a people whose populism understands voke than to enlighten. Accordingly,produces I willsparks. provoke.Sparks Provocationkindle a flame. Flames ignite combustible estimated 2 billion—about 33world. percent An ofapproximatethe total population breakdown:307 million;of theAfrica—335 Europe—537 million; million; Asia— Latin America—476 million; America, and constitute theeconomic, religious andexpression military ofdominationits cultural, ofthe world. North America—212 million; and Oceania—21 million.1 missionary force is a steadily diminishing proportion ofEurope,the whole. Great Britain, and North America. One hundred years IBERTAS IDES ET li. J later, the total number of missionaries is estimated to be 420,000— with only 12 percent to 15 percent coming from Europe and North America. The Christian “center of gravity” is no longer the West, whose Christian confidence has been steadily eroded or at least leavened by subliminal agnosticism.2 It is—and always has been— the poor who respond to the good news. Christianity has never re­ mained healthily vigorous within comfortable or merely dominant societies. It is a faith that attracts the disenfranchised, even as it poses a threat to the vested interests of the establishment.

Assumption 3: Missionaries are employees of corporate en­ tities known as mission societies.

In fact, the vast majority of missionaries work more or less spontaneously—as formal or informal extensions of local commu­ nities of faith, with little or no organic link to the European tribal Christianity we have come to identify as the norm. Western cogna- tive maps and vocabularies have yet to catch up with this reality, for they often reflect the era of religious triumphalism when missionar­ ies were Americans—or at least Europeans or Canadians—who went overseas to the less civilized (now read, underdeveloped) parts of the planet. Thus to think that by keeping the more inflammatory elements of the Western missionary contingent under control (through such agencies as the U.S. Department of State) will re­ solve the problem of proselytism is quite like imagining that popu­ lation control in India will be achieved by strictly enforcing laws forbidding the marriage of eunuchs.

Assumption 4: Missionaries are members of identifiable, mainline Christian denominations and traditions, and as such, can be specifically identified and enumerated.

In fact, most missionaries today derive from denominations whose names do not appear in our most up-to-date encyclopedias. They are lay persons, not ordained clergy, who tend to be associ­ ated with non-affiliated charismatic or Pentecostal churches. Furthermore, the rate at which denominations are proliferating makes any kind of control—even of the most draconian variety— well nigh impossible. Governments might try to curtail the activi­ ties of their own citizens by issuing various cautions, directives, and stem missives, but given the tremendous diversity of Christian opinion, I doubt that such will work. FID ES ET LIBERTAS Assumption 5: Christian missionaries get paid for what 2000

91 they do; they do well by doing good.

In fact, most missionaries do not receive remuneration. Only members of those societies modeled after Western agencies receive more than a subsistence allowance, if that. Thus, if no one is pay­ ing the fiddler, he will call his own tune.

Assumption 6: Christian missionaries have a lot of power— including the ability to coerce unwilling people to become converts.

In fact, most missionaries—including those from the West— are persons of moderate intelligence, modest means, and limited dialectical skills. Most missionaries from the West are not involved in aggressive evangelism, but rather in serving churches already established in the countries to which they have gone.

Assumption 7: Given the opportunity to make deeply per­ sonal choices affecting themselves and their family’s cultural and religious life, most people in the world are not capable of making sensible decisions. State and/or religious officiaries can best do this for them.

What an insulting, patronizing view of human intelligence— and one with which Christian missionaries have little sympathy. Laws against proselytizing reflect an elitist view of ordinary human beings—the view that when faced with alternatives, human beings deemed intellectually, socially, or economically inferior will not choose judiciously; the view that authoritarian powers of political or military ilk best dictate all such decisions. I suspect that the word “offensive,” when used to describe missionary activities, is simply code language to mask the syntax and vocabulary of stifling national, regional, or local xenophobia, and that such xenophobia is not infrequently a reaction to both per­ ceived and real threats to the vested interests of those who benefit most from the status quo. A case in point from India: Laws de­ signed to curb Christianity are being put forward in the states of Gujarat, Orissa, and Uttar Pradesh. In Gujarat and Uttar Pradesh converts will be required to register their conversion with authori­ ties. In Orissa, where in 1998 Graham Staines and his two young sons were burned alive, persons will have to get official permission

FID ES ET to change religion.3 LIBERTAS The fact is, most missionary activity—even of the Western va­ 2000 riety—needs little “adjustment” since most missionary activity

92 causes no—or very little—offense to the local populace. One Samaritan assisting a battered Jew by the side of the road was ap­ parently offensive to the sensibilities of the religious authorities of the time, but it was not offensive to the one being helped. Now let me repeat the question:

How can missionary activities be adjusted to minimize ad­ verse reactions without sacrificing the right to manifest reli­ gious beliefs and practices?

Here are some tongue-in-cheek suggestions to policy makers in Washington:

(1) Urge American missionaries not to behave as Americans.

Observed Galbraith: “Nothing so gives the illusion of intelli­ gence as association with large sums of money.” Accordingly, Americans tend to think that they must be right about everything. So, urge missionaries from the United States not to behave like Americans, with their inflated sense of entitlement, their overbear­ ing sense of superiority, their deplorable parochialism, their blatant materialism, their incapacitating mono-lingualism, their cultural boorishness, and the general way they move in noisy herds through exotic lands, cameras at the ready. (The fact is, the many American missionaries 1 know are, by and large, exceptions to these American “rules.”)

(2) Either halt globalization or engage in genuine free trade with no tariffs, no quotas, no economic borders.

Why? Because Western missionaries are really little more than the religious expression of far more formidable forces of global transformation through economics and cultural destruction through education (a term that now implies some variation of Western en- culturation). Western missionaries are like Sidney Smith’s “flies on a chariot wheel”—unable to determine its motion, affect its direc­ tion, or dictate its speed.

(3) Perhaps the state could require some certifiable proof of cultural sensitivity.

FID ES ET For example, the completion of a course titled Humility in LIBERTAS Cross-cultural Communication. Of course this requirement would 2000

93

(May 22, International published in the Christianity Today remains salutary. I Vol. 24, No. 2 (April 2000), appearing in the The Edinburgh Review). Vol. 24, No. (January 1 2000), pp. 24, 25. Barrett (Reprinted from The Edinburgh Review, The State in Its Relations with the Church, Essays by LordMacaulay InternationalBulletin oMissionary f Research, Finally, for those still wondering about the role ofthe state in Edited from a paper Dr. Bonk presented at a Conference on Religion and 1 The1 figures are provided by David B. Barrett and Todd M. Johnson in their 2 2 See Dana L. Robert: “Shifting Southward: Global Christianity Since 3 1945,”Reported by Manpreet Singh (in New Delhi) in 4 4 94 April 1838 issue of highly recommend it!4 be applied not merely to religiousAmerican evangelists, glad tidings—scientists, but to all bearers economists,of corporate execu­ missionary activity, i.e., proselytizing,Macaulay, I onesuggest ofEngland’s recourse Thoughgrandto Lord old it mastersis obviously ofthe dated, language. his review ofW. E. Gladstone’s 1839 is the editor ofthe World Christian Encyclopedia,in thefirst released in 1982. Notes and references: Foreign Policy arranged Mayby the 2000. United States Department ofState, Washington, Bulletin oMissionary f Research, Complete edition. London: George Routledge and Sons, 1887; pp. 490-524. tives, politicians, and development experts as well. book pp. 50-58. 2000), p. 31. Annual Statistical Table on Global Mission: 2000, DES ET BERTAS

IL J 2000 Fides et Libertas

2000

SPECIAL SECTION I

Guiding Principles for the Responsible Dissemination of Religion or Belief

International Religious Liberty Association Conference of Experts

San Lorenzo de El Escorial, Spain May 1999

Las Navas del Marques, Spain January 2000

of 1966, the of 1981, and the of 1992, widespread of 1948, and including the PREAMBLE Freedom ofreligion or beliefincludes the right to manifest Accepting the increasing reality ofreligious pluralism and With increasing globalization and growing interreligious and Freedom ofreligion or beliefis a basic human right. Despite 96 1999 and early 2000, and adopted the following statement on spe­ UniversalDeclaration oHuman f Rights Guiding Principles for the Responsible Dissemination of Religion or Belief and respect for equal rights for all, the Conference ofExperts dissemination sug­ ofreligion or belief.an ethical These character principles and have provide primarily criteria to guide individualsevance and for relations between religious communities and states. and communicate one’s faith differingor belief beliefsto others. about Religions how they have should disseminate their convic­evitably affects interreligious relations. The term “proselytism” has Declaration on the Rights oPersons f Belonging to National or years by the various international instruments, beginning with the ideological strife, a constructive relationship among religionsReligious has Liberty Associationof convenedexperts in themeetings United and States,conferences the United Kingdom, and cificSpain points in ofagreement. Ethnic, Religious andLinguistic violations Minorities ofthis right continue to occur and are to be deplored. with the aim ofstrengthening religious liberty, tolerance, gestsdialogue, the following guiding principles regarding the responsible communities in their relations with each other. They also Thesehave rel­principles are based on the dignity ofthe human person and tions. The question of“proselytizing” or making converts variousin­ meanings and connotations.this document To avoid does ambiguity, not use it. hereafter Discrimination Basedon Religion or Belief Declaration on the Elimination oAll f Forms oIntolerance f andof International Covenant on Civil andPolitical Rights the strong support given to this universal right during the past fifty become imperative. To deal with these issues, the International IDES ET IBERTAS

IL J 2000 the person’s freedom to follow the voice of conscience.

The conference participants are convinced that the observance of the following guiding principles is invaluable in enhancing a culture of peace, social cohesion, personal and collective responsi­ bility, and the upholding of equal rights for all.

The conference participants hope that all individuals and reli­ gious communities will look at these principles in the light of their own beliefs and practices, and make them their own, thus being fully committed to the divine mandate or high ideals in which they believe.

PRINCIPLES (1) To teach, manifest, and disseminate one’s religion or belief is an established human right. Everyone has the right to attempt to convince others of the truth of one’s belief. Everyone has the right to adopt or change religion or belief without coercion and accord­ ing to the dictates of conscience.

(2) Aware of their common responsibilities, religious commu­ nities should build relationships through contacts and conversa­ tions, manifesting convictions with humility, respect, and honesty. Dialogue should replace confrontation. In witnessing to others or in planning missionary activity, the inviolable dignity of the ad­ dressed persons requires consideration of their history, convictions, way of life, and cultural expressions.

(3) Religion, faith, or belief is best disseminated when the wit­ ness of a person’s life is coherent with the message announced, and leads to free acceptance by those to whom it is addressed.

(4) In disseminating faith or beliefs, one should be truthful and fair towards other religions and beliefs. This requires comparing the ideals of one’s own community with the ideals of other com­ munities, and not with the alleged failures of others.

(5) In the dissemination of religion or beliefs, both the rights of majority and minority should be protected in accordance with international human rights instruments which condemn all forms of discrimination and intolerance.

(6) In referring to other religious and belief communities, re­ spectful and non-offensive terminology should be used. FID ES ET LIBERTAS (7) Social and humanitarian activities should not be linked to 2000

97 the dissemination of faith or beliefs in a way that exploits the poor and vulnerable members of society by offering financial or other material incentives with the intent to induce people to keep or change their religion or belief.

(8) While the right to hold and manifest religious beliefs and convictions is recognized, interreligious strife, hatred, and antago­ nistic religious competition are to be avoided and replaced by dia­ logue in truth and mutual respect.

(9) No one should knowingly make false statements regarding any aspect of other religions, nor denigrate or ridicule their beliefs, practices, or origins. Objective information about these religions is always to be desired in order to avoid the spreading of ill-founded judgments and sweeping prejudices.

( 10) Dissemination of religious faith or belief should respect the addressed person’s freedom to choose or reject a religion or be­ lief without physical or psychological coercion, and should not force that person to break the natural ties with family, which is the foundational component of society.

(11) Using political or economic power or facilitating its spread under the guise of disseminating religious faith or belief is improper and should be rejected.

(12) Responsible dissemination of religious faith or belief should accept that it may invigorate the faith of the persons or groups addressed, or lead to a free and unfettered choice to change one’s religious affiliation.

(13) Bearing in mind their responsibilities for the common good of society, religious communities should, where feasible and in harmony with their convictions, join in efforts aimed at improv­ ing justice and welfare, and peace among peoples and nations.

(14) Where conflicts arise with respect to dissemination of re­ ligion or belief, the relevant communities should consider entering into a process of conciliation.

International Religious Liberty Association

FID E S ET Conference o f Experts LIBERTAS Adopted by consensus January 29, 2000 2000 Las Navas del Marques, Spain

98 Disestablishment in Sweden: A Reflection on the Development of the Relationship Between Church and State

Urban Gibson

Former president Church of Sweden Fund Stock Company Stockholm

The title above states both the theme and the method of this article. My reference point is the changing relationship between the State of Sweden and the Church of Sweden, the latter also known as the Evangelical-Lutheran Church of Sweden. Christianity was brought to Sweden more than 1,000 years ago by missionary monks of the Roman Catholic Church. In the 16th century Sweden became part of the Lutheran reformation. During the 1520s King Gustavus Vasa seized control of the Catholic Church and its wealth, even minting church bells into coins. But some of his successors, such as King John, his son Sigismund (later king of Poland), and Queen Christina (who con­ verted to Catholicism in the 17th century), sought to lead Sweden back to the Catholic faith. The church remained, however, a solid Lutheran state church from the middle of the 16th century to the beginning of the 19th. Local parishes were given the tasks of keep­ ing the public records of births and deaths, educating the children of the lower classes, and performing certain other social services. To this end, each parish elected laymen to a church board to gov­ ern these local activities. What was “church” and what was “state” became very unclear. Swedish citizens were not allowed to leave or remain outside the church without leaving the country, the exception being German and Jewish merchants who were permitted to build their own churches and synagogues in certain cities. In 1726 Sweden adopted a law prohibiting private religious meetings—the so-called konventikelplakatet. The statute remained in force until 1868. Challenges to the established church began to appear around the middle of the 19th century, inspired in part by Baptist congre­ FID ES ET LIBERTAS gations in Europe and the United States and by the Methodist movement in England. When many local priests, especially in cen­ 2000

99 In 1979 the government offered a proposal to the church’s In 1958, however, the first government study was initiated for In time, the religious laws were changed to allow the activities The free church movement and the temperance movement After some time, discussions began within the church to allow Up until the middle ofthe 20th century, about 98% ofthe pop­ 100 liefin the faith they preached,ings people in private began homes,to hold sharingreligious Bible meet­ study, prayer, and communion leave the country with their followers. sible to leave the Church ofSweden for another confession.allowed But people to leave the Lutheran Church withoutjoining an­ tral and western Sweden, clearly showed their lack ofpersonal be­ the end ofthe 19th century ofandthese into themovements early 20th. usedThe theirmemberslitical knowledge life, nationally ofand experienceand locally. inThe po­ two movements became latter group failed, in 1973, to agree on a proposal based on the ulation belonged to the Lutheran Church (in that period “bomit was not into” the church ifatchildren least one wereofthe baptized parents inbelonged. the lawlocal recognized parishMost church. local Constitutionalparishescollect as local local authorities taxes. with the right to without the leadership ofclergy.punished Many by lay imprisonment,leaders were severelyfines, and even exile; many chose to ofthe so-called “free churches” ofSweden. In 1860 it becamenot until pos­ 1951 did Sweden adopt a law on religious freedomother that church. closely linked to the Folkpartiet, the Social Liberal Party ofthat oftheir own. it to comment on the long-overdue reforms which the parliamen­ Working for years,10 the first committee prepared recommenda­ work ofthe first committee. Justcommittee, one member representing ofthe parliamentary the objected.Farmers PartyOlaf (nowPalme, the then Center ministerfairs, Party),did of noteducation have the and courage church to af­bring the recommendations to yet called the Church ofSweden). Children were automatically were strong forces for democracy and the rule oflaw in Sweden at period. The Social Liberals toactually Parliament got Socialist before workersthe Social elected Democrats were able to win seats tary committee had failed tothe propose. church The a new main structure goal was at proach, tothe givecentral the governmentlevel. Welcoming invited this the ap­church to a four-year dialogue. the purpose ofseparating the Church ofSweden from thetions state. which were turned overto a parliamentary committee. The Parliament because national elections were imminent. IDES ET IBERTAS

IL J 2000 General Synod. At the time, the Social Liberal Party was in sole power, but without a parliamentary majority. Presenting to the de­ cision makers a plan that would give the Church of Sweden inde­ pendent status was a delicate task. The church would lose the right to tax its members, but the government would assist in the collec­ tion of membership fees. The Social Liberal government favored the reform in the face of much criticism from the local parishes which did not want to lose the tax-collection role. Reform failed again. Prior to the General Synod, a majority of the delegates supported a motion rejecting the government’s offer. Lay persons comprised the majority of the opposition. But Bertil Hansson, then minister of church and community affairs, did not want to give up the reform effort. He appointed four governmental committees to resolve the issues that had prompted the lay rejection of the original proposal. The first problem concerned women in the priesthood. Many lay persons feared that an independent church structure would overturn the 1959 reform that allowed women clergy. The problem was solved in 1982 by a parliamentary decision reaffirming the right of women to become ministers of the Church of Sweden. The wording of the 1959 action was changed to deny ordination to male candidates if they refused to cooperate with female priests, including the administration of the Eucharist. The second issue solved through a decision in Parliament was to maintain the existing protocol on burials even if the relationship between the church and the state were to change. Burials have al­ ways been a parochial responsibility. The third area of contention was the keeping of the civil reg­ istry, by tradition a function of the vicars of the local parishes. When a person moved, changed civil status, or needed a birth cer­ tificate, he or she contacted the local vicar who determined where a person actually resided. Any change in parish maintenance of the civil registry would have financial repercussions since local taxes vary from parish to parish. Here, one of Hansson’s parliamentary committees proposed a radical change. The whole system was transformed; registrars became civil servants rather than church servants. But it took about eight years for this solution to be ap­ proved by Parliament. The fourth issue was one of law. A governmental committee was assigned to amend the Constitutional Act in the area of church regulation without changing the formal relationship between

church and state (since such an attempt had just failed). However, FID ES ET recent changes in the Constitution on freedom of religion blocked LIBERTAS the committee from including paragraphs on church structure. 2000

101 Instead (and as a temporary solution), the committee included the old, basic church laws in the new rules of change annexed to the new Constitution. If the proposed reform program was accepted by the church and Parliament approved, the result would be the much- longed-for restructuring of the central church organization. The committee (of which I was a member) succeeded. Several paragraphs of the old law were deleted. Reform of church struc­ ture, albeit only partial, was a big step in the direction of freedom from state regulation. The church now had a democratic central structure. Still, the free churches, among others, immediately heaped criticism on reform because it seemed to give the now offi­ cially-designated Church of Sweden a stronger base for influencing parliamentary legislation. Not many then realized that this reform paved the way for, at a later stage, the cutting of the ties between church and state. Reform commenced formally in 1984. The new central church organization enlarged the General Synod from 96 to 251 persons, representing each parish through indirect election. Each parish elects persons who, on the diocesan level, elect the members of the General Synod. In turn, the new General Synod names persons to a reform innovation, the Central Board (Centralstyrelsen). The gov­ ernment originally intended for this body only to draft motions for the General Synod, but in reality, the Central Board soon became the power center in the church, deciding matters previously han­ dled by the government—which nevertheless remained the head of the church. While this strengthening of the General Synod and the Central Board was taking place in 1984, eight non-governmental church organizations, including Swedish Church Aid (Lutherhjalpen), the Church of Sweden Abroad (SKUT), the Church of Sweden Mission (SKM), the Parish Union (Pastoratsforbundent), and four others, joined forces to form the Church of Sweden Foundation for Free Activities (the SFRV), an organization totally independent of the state. The SFRV is a service organization for parish financial affairs and, save for parish priests who remain state civil servants, for parish employees. The SFRV decided to use the Church of Sweden’s General Synod as its own assembly and the church’s Central Board as its own board. This meant that the synod and the board could deal with both matters regulated by church law and private matters at the same meetings. This, then, is an outline of the organization of the Church of

FID ES ET Sweden through December 31, 1999. LIBERTAS The history of church reforms was not complete in 1984; actu­ 2000 ally, it had only begun. A few years after, a diocesan reform gave

102 the diocese the same structure as a local parochial association, with its own synod and the bishop presiding ex-officio. The bishop and the members of the cathedral chapter (domkapitel) remained civil servants. Until January 1, 2000, the cathedral chapter in each dio­ cese would decide in matters of state church law—matters relating, in the main, to the clergy. A big step— some say the main step—towards independence for the Church of Sweden was taken in 1994 when Parliament, on a proposal by the church itself, decided that Swedish citizens would no longer become members of the church at birth. Since then, membership comes through baptism. But parents may request their children to be “counted” as members in anticipation of bap­ tism to follow at a later date. At the age of 18, every individual has the opportunity to decide whether he or she wants to stay in the church, baptized or not. In the late 1980s the government was ready to appoint a state commission to determine the one remaining issue: the formal con­ stitutional relationship between the state and the church. But the approval of the General Synod was a pre-requisite before the pro­ cess could start. Synod members from three nomination groups were more or less in favor of a reform that would free the church from the state, while others called for reform within the existing framework of church-state relations. The General Synod stipulated that the state commission explore both options. Some years later, the commission concluded that the old rela­ tionship should be discontinued. For the church this was an oppor­ tunity to become a real church—a church free from the state. While the state had long wanted to change the church-state rela­ tionship through the political process in Parliament, every initiative had been blocked by a majority of the Social Democrats and others who did not want to decide the issue until the synod asked. The state commission was succeeded by a parliamentary com­ mittee, i.e., a committee in which all political parties in Parliament have a seat and voice. The majority report of this committee stated that “from the viewpoint of the state, there is still reason to take a positive view of religious activities, partly because of their impor­ tant social ramifications. This should be combined with respect for those citizens who choose to disassociate themselves from reli­ gious activities. In contemporary society, there is no reason for the state to favor any one denomination. On the contrary, the state should remain as neutral as possible to the different denomina­ tions.” In the end, the committee recommended, and Parliament FID ES ET decided, that the Church of Sweden be given legal status in its own LIBERTAS right, affiliated neither to national nor local government. Its posi­ 2000

103 tion would be set forth in the Constitutional Act and in a special Church of Sweden Act. Parishes and charitable and parochial asso­ ciations would remain legal entities in their own right, but would cease being local ecclesiastical authorities. Additionally, the Religious Denominations Act provided that as of January 1, 2000, the Church of Sweden would automatically become a “registered denomination.” Other denominations were given the same opportu­ nity to acquire similar status. The parochial tax of former years has been replaced by an ec­ clesiastical charge, payable by members of the Church of Sweden and levied through the regular national revenue system. Other de­ nominations may employ this method of collecting membership fees. In both cases, it is not a question of state taxation, but of re­ ceiving the assistance of the national revenue system to collect membership dues. The amount of the fee is determined by each parish of the Church of Sweden and by the national boards of the other participating denominations. The Methodist Church and the Mission Covenant Church, for example, proposed a fee of 1 per­ cent of taxed income. Of the money thus collected, 30 percent sup­ ports central church administration, 70 percent benefits the local congregation. Other denominations have different models of col­ lection and distribution. Church taxes for 1999 averaged 1.17 percent of the taxed per­ sonal income. For many years wealthy parishes of the Church of Sweden have paid a solidarity tax based on 50 percent of their levied income. Solidarity tax revenue goes into a church fund to benefit poor parishes including some building expenses. Thus up to 25 percent of the income of some parishes (the Stockholm diocese and other large urban parishes) is shared with poorer ones. Some call it a Robin Hood system, but it is likely to continue. Each congregation among the free churches must now decide if it wants to use the new fee collection system. Individual mem­ bers of the congregations have to agree in writing to have the membership fee deducted with his or her taxes. Under the reform actions, the Church of Sweden retained its property and the general mandate to provide burial services, the latter supported by individual residents paying a burial charge through the national tax system. Burials of non-Christian citizens, however, are no longer a diocesan responsibility, but are handled by local parishes. In sum, the few changes to the Constitutional Act and the FID ES ET adoption of the two new laws replaced 1,200 paragraphs of old na­ LIBERTAS tional law and governmental decrees. But in my opinion the re­ 2000 maining number of paragraphs is still too large. The government

104 says the definition of the Church of the Sweden in the law corre­ sponds to what the church itself is saying. But if the church were to change its identity so that the legal definition no longer applies, Parliament would have to act—and this is not in keeping with full freedom of religion. Still, the changes in church-state relations are so great and the overall results so beneficial that I, for one, am in favor of the reform.

A former teacher and director of the Swedish headmaster organization, Urban Gibson has also served as mayor of a Stockholm suburb, vice chair of the Stockholm County Council, deputy managing director of the Church of Sweden Publishing Company, and (for ten years prior to retirement) president of the Church of Sweden Fund Stock Company. In various years since 1975 he has been a mem­ ber of the Church of Sweden Assembly and the church’s Central Board. This article is edited from an address Mr. Gibson presented at the International Academy for Freedom of Religion and Belief Conference on Religious Pluralism in Northern Europe, Riga, Latvia, March 1999.

FID ES ET LIBERTAS 2000

105

* I I feel greatly honored in being invited to inaugurate the IRLA We are living in a world ofunprecedented change. Human There is, however, a darker side. The powerthat science and 106 The Rising Star ofReligious Freedom: in in the 21st Century Inaugural Address ofthe IRLA World Conference A A Fundamental Right New Delhi, November 1999 Manmohan Singh Member ofthe Parliament ofIndia ing to different faiths. It is fitting in the that capital this conferenceofa country is beingwhich hasheld allowed every religious tradi­ World Conference on Religious Freedom. India has a unique tradi­ fucianism and Shintoism, almostditions all werethe well-knowneither bom religious in IndiaChristianity, tra­or have madefor example, India theirarrived home. in India long before it reached India in thest century. 1 is increasing at a pace unthinkable only a few decades ago and rev­ isfy human wants. Properly harnessed, advances in science and New Delhi tion ofreligious co-existence andtolerance towards people belong­ tion to flourish and has also providedbeing persecuted shelter to thosein the wholand wereoftheir birth. Except for Con­ Europe and the Americas. AccordingThomas, toone popular ofthe tradition,original St. 12 apostles ofJesus Christ, came to olutionizing the very basis ofharnesshuman natureexistence to serveby its humankind. abilitydiscoveries to The revealssaga of modemhow humankind, ence,scientific has indeveloped a disciplined an extraordinarypursuit ofsci­ capacity to wrest from nature knowledge—particularly scientific andtechnological knowledge— truths whose application has greatly enhanced our capacitytechnology to sat­ now make possible,the eradicationas never before ofpoverty, in human ignorance,the history, earth. and disease from the face of technology has given us over nature has been won at a price. IDES ET IBERTAS

Il J 2000 Concern for the environment has followed hard on the heels of concern about the destructive potential of weapons of mass de­ struction gifted to the people of the world by 20th century technol­ ogy. Moreover, the sheer rapidity of technological change has given rise to a number of social and psychological problems which make the modem world, for all its technological marvels, an un­ comfortable and unfulfilling place to live. There is a growing feel­ ing that a society of acquisition prevents human beings from cultivating the warm, affiliative side of human nature. * Scientific and technological knowledge has immense potential both for good and for evil. For example, both nuclear physics and biogenetic research give rise to profound moral dilemmas as to their possible uses. But by itself science does not provide a moral compass to guide humanity in making wise choices in the use of scientific knowledge. This is possible only when scientific progress is accompanied by a mass moral awakening to raise relevant ques­ tions about the use of knowledge. The enlightened notion of man as a creation of reason, proportion, and decency is not adequate. To guide humankind in a socially constructive use of knowledge, we need to develop a morally informed consciousness which empha­ sizes self-control and asks basic ethical questions. For the discovery of these moral values and ethical norms we must turn to religion and spirituality. I do not here refer to any par­ ticular sect or creed, but to the eternal and universal religion which emphasizes the essential oneness and unity of all mankind. It is this religious tradition which finds eloquent expression in ancient Indian scriptures—to which Vivekananda referred when he said that in India the backbone, the foundation, the very center of life is religion and religion alone. It is precisely this concept of religion that Gandhiji made the basis of his policies, and, on the strength of which, he wished to spiritualize politics. There are alternative spiri­ tual paths supported by different philosophical systems to guide us in our quest for self-perfection and social good through a judicious mix of self-study, self-control of body and mind, and righteous con­ duct. But basically, they all explore the same fundamental truths, al­ though they use different idioms. Spirituality thus becomes a quest for inner and outer perfection, the better to face the challenges of life. It is a quest for a design for living—a design informed and guided by divinity. This gives our lives meaning and purpose. *

Religious thought has been a powerful factor in shaping the FID ES ET course of human history. Now as never before, we need a new spir­ LIBERTAS itual awakening to ensure that the increased material well-being 2000

107 and leisure time made possible by science and technology are not wasted in costly excitements catering exclusively to bodily desires. Science and technology influenced by religious thought ought to become the means to reignite impulses for both self-perfection and social reform, including a reformation of religious practices based on the dignity of the individual human being—on compassion, tol­ erance, gentleness, truthfulness, and non-violence. I see religion’s key mission as contributing powerfully to the evolution of a truly universal human civilization based on both rea­ son and spirituality. Perhaps Einstein had this synthesis in mind when he stated that science without religion is lame and religion without science is blind. It should be the common endeavor of those engaged in inter-faith dialogue to develop a truly universal value system for the guidance of human conduct in the increas­ ingly interdependent world in which we now live. * We stand on the threshold of a new century and a new millen­ nium. There are exciting opportunities as well as enormous chal­ lenges. At such a momentous point in time, it is appropriate to reaffirm the essence of our unity in peaceful coexistence. More than ever before, we need to rededicate ourselves to the goal of an open society committed to respect for all fundamental human free­ doms. Human rights in religion and belief have not been merely in­ tuited; they have been enunciated by every major community of faith. Throughout history people have made enormous sacrifices to uphold the sanctity of these rights. The state, society, and the indi­ vidual have distinct roles in preserving these rights. Promoting an environment that is more explicitly protective of these rights is ur­ gently relevant today—particularly so in the context of incidents of communal disharmony that are erupting with terrible violence all over the world. Through specific international instruments, the world has come some distance in its efforts to protect more actively the fun­ damental human rights to religious liberty and freedom of belief. And yet most of these instruments have been only recently formu­ lated—in just over the last 50 years. • On December 10, 1948, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. • In 1966 the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights was adopted. It addresses civil, political, and social rights. • In 1976 the ICCPR became a legal obligation for ratifying

FID ES ET states. LI BERT AS • In December 1981, following 20 years of preparation, the 2000 United Nations issued its Declaration on the Elimination of All

108 Forms of Intolerance and Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief. • And in 1989 the Vienna Accords strengthened the 1975 Helsinki Final Act regarding human rights in general and religious liberty in particular.

* I have cited the international instruments that emphasize stan­ dards for all nations, all governments, all religions, and all peoples because they are the most recent developments and they are the most widely encompassing. Let me note here that India, in its Constitution and in its religions, provides one of the finest exam­ ples of commitment to and respect for the noble concept of reli­ gious freedom. Guru Tegh Bahadur (1621-1675), the ninth master of the Sikhs, sacrificed his life in a defense of the religious faith and free­ dom of the Hindus of his time. He challenged the authority of the rulers on an issue that did not directly affect him. Thereby he saved Tilak and Janeo, two ritualistic symbols of the Hindus. Such an un­ precedented act of defense of human rights was for what Bahadur believed: the right of everyone to believe and to practice the reli­ gion of his or her choice. Freedom of conscience is a fundamental tenet of ancient Indian philosophy. It is indispensable to self-realization (moksha). Religious tolerance as a value is deeply embedded in India’s cul­ ture and civilization. Mahatma Gandhi once said: “Hinduism tells everyone to worship God according to his own faith or Dharma, and so it lives at peace with all religions.” In the preamble to the Indian Constitution, it is solemnly re­ solved to secure to all citizens “liberty of thought, expression, be­ lief, faith, and worship.” In Articles 25 through 28 of the Constitution, freedom of religion is a part of the fundamental rights guaranteed to every citizen. Under the heading “Freedom of Conscience and Free Profession, Practice, and Propagation,” the Constitution states: Subject to public order, morality, and health, and to other provi­ sions of this part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of con­ science and the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate religion. The essence of Indian nationhood can be characterized as a quest for unity in diversity, peace, freedom, and harmony. Respect for the reli­ gious beliefs of individuals is endemic to Indian culture. Tolerance and acceptance mark Indian life. The cultural heritage of this country was conducive to producing Gautama Buddha, Mahavir, and Mahatma Gandhi. Guru Nanak made a significant contribution to the concept of brotherhood and the right of man to live according to the dictates of his conscience. India’s long, historical past sparkles with the incidents of FID ES ET men and women who, at great personal risk and sacrifice, endeavored to LIBERTAS preserve freedom of religion, communal harmony, and peace. Unfortunately, the picture today is not so bright. We face grave 2000

109 threats to these cherished ideals. The price of religious freedom, communal harmony, national integration, and peace is eternal vigi­ lance. To this let us commit ourselves. Unless the offensive is taken to move public opinion to favor these ideals and see that they are instilled in the hearts of or children, the future will not be better. Every legitimate grievance must be attended to. Justice and fair play must define our national life. Regardless of religious affil­ iation, every person must feel accepted as a full-fledged citizen of the country. Opportunities for personal development and contribu­ tions to society should not be hindered by caste or religion. These principles underline the concept of religious freedom, communal harmony, and peace. * In the final analysis, let us not forget that today, as always, the battle is for the minds of men. Our youth must have minds which are independent, free, objective, and devoted to the investigation of truth concerning the issues that are ever before us in regard to life on Planet Earth. Man must be free to seek his own destiny, to es­ tablish his own relationship and communion with his Maker, and to follow the dictates of his own conscience; but always in the framework and full consciousness of his place, role, and obliga­ tions in and for the society of which he is an integral part, and to the reality that the liberty and individuality he seeks must be ex­ tended to every other member of the community. As stated in the Declaration of Principles adopted by the International Religious Liberty Association, the spirit of true religious liberty is epito­ mized in the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have oth­ ers do unto you. It is in that affirmation and commitment that we find the gene­ sis and the revelation of communal harmony and peace. It is then we shall see the evolution of communities where freedom of reli­ gion shall be both cherished and nourished in an atmosphere of mutual love and respect, where fellowship and service to others shall flow like rivers, where everyone shall call our God, Father, and his neighbor, brother. It is then we shall see and experience the star of religious freedom rise and shine in an atmosphere of toler­ ance, peace, and harmony. All of us have an obligation to work for the realization of this noble vision. I take great pleasure in inaugurating this world conference on religious freedom. May our path be blessed.

FID ES ET LIBERTAS Dr. Singh leads the opposition in the Raja Sabha, the upper house of India’s 2000 Parliament.

110 Religious Liberty and the Third Millennium: A Baha’i View of the Turning Point for All Nations

A. K. Merchant

Director of External Affairs National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha’is of India New Delhi

Thoughtful commentators have written both negatively and positively about the past millennium and, especially, about the 20th century. Some talk apprehensively of the fall of culture and the consequent disappearance of values, of the loss of the fullness of the inner life, of a technological civilization facing an increas­ ingly serious crisis. A survey conducted by The New York Times in April 1995 may be cited as a typical example. The newspaper in­ vited its readers to characterize the age in which we live. Common offerings were what one might expect: “The Age of Anxiety,” “The Age of Uncertainty,” “The Age of Fragmentation,” “The Age of (Great and Failed) Expectations,” “The Age of Disillusion (and Dissolution),” “The Age of Tribalism,” “The Age of Fundamentalism,” “The Age of Deconstruction,” “The Age of Greed,” and approximately 20 variations on “The Age of Eschatology and Messianism.” A few readers reflected their preoc­ cupation with “The Transnational Era” and “The Age of Kakistocracy”—government by the worst people. Editors reported that the word “global” was very common in entries, as were the prefixes “dis,” “re,” “post,” “cyber,’’and “fin de.” On a more scholarly level, the eminent historian Eric Hobsbawm titled his 1995 history of the 20th century Age o f Extremes. The book’s first major section, covering the years 1914 to 1945, is “The Age of Catastrophe,” while the final section, covering the last two decades, is “The Landslide.” Others deserving of men­ tion who have written about present-day society as social scientists, futurists, or historians include Jonathan Schell, Paul Kennedy, Samuel Huntington, Alvin Toffler, and Vaclav Havel. In general, they perceive the human species as moving perilously on the road to FID ES ET LIBERTAS self-destruction, unable to control itself, and in dire need of divine wisdom and foresight—a need its psyche is unable to recognize. 2000

111 In the wake ofsuch horrendous disruptions, there have been unex­ [In fact,] a paralyzing contradiction has developed in human af­ Indeed, the world in its current condition has lost its bearings rightful places within the community ofnations which has greatly ex­ international cooperation, nations are at woeful odds with one another, futility deranging personal life. ing free play to individual creativity and initiative but based on coopera­ lized life as it was known at the beginning ofthe twentieth century. Such writings in the media and elsewhere indicate the deep ampled advances in the zations;realms ofa veritablescience, technology,explosionburgeoning of andknowledge; socialin the organi­awakening andpreviously even andmore rise presumed remarkable ofmasses to be of dormant.humanity Thesewhich masseswerepanded. are claimingWith the their simultaneous speed ofdevelopmentlight and transportation ofcommunicationscontracted at theinto aspeedat mere the of neighborhoodofsound, each theother’s world in affairs whichhas andpeopleeven have withare immediate instantlysuch miraculous awareaccesstional to advances, eachorganizations, other. with And the andyet, emergence with valiant of interna­attempts andpeople brilliant are convulsed successes byat thaneconomic before upheavals,and are filled racescalls with feelattentionmistrust, more alienatedto humiliation, the emptiness and of fear.the moral. . . This landscape and the feeling offairs. On the one hand, peoplereadiness ofall but nations their longingproclaimrowing for not peace apprehensions only and their harmony, tormentingcal assentfor an their endis given to dailythe to har­ thelives.selfish proposition On andthe aggressiveother, that uncriti­ human and oncebeings thus progressive incapable are incorrigibly ofanderecting peaceful, a socialdynamic system and at harmonious, a system giv­ A broader consideration ofhistory is needed to understand a through the operation offorces a periodit neither in understandswhich great dynastiesnor cancession, control. and empiresinIt which is havepowerful collapsed ideologiesonly in torapid expire have suc­ capturedin infamy, the in whichhearts of twomillions world wars wreaked havoc on civi­ tion and reciprocity. 112 individual self-interest. This loyalty extends to the family unit, skepticism and pessimism with which our age is generallyselves re­ as individual citizens and as a society. As Prof. Hobsbawm move, the sea on which we sail. ... We do not know where our hood, whose culmination has been marked by the achievement, in deeper truth: Humanity is subjecthistory to ofchange,human to relationships,development. theIn themost primitive stage is that of garded. They reflect, too, on the issue ofidentity: how we putssee our­it: “Since the middle ofcivilizationthe century has... begun to crackthecharts branchand whichbreak. ofthe guided old... human beings,throughThe old mapssinglylife no and and longer collectively, represent the landscape through which we the Universal House ofJustice, the the worldwide supreme Baha’igoverning Community: council of then to the tribe. After the constitutional city states, there is nation­ journey is taking us, or even ought to take us.” Here is the view of DES ET BERTAS

U. J 2000 the case of the majority of the world’s nations, of independence from former colonial powers. Now we face the challenge of the last and crowning stage in our collective social and religious devel­ opment—world unity. According to Baha’u’llah, founder of the Baha’i faith, the cen­ tral issue facing all people, whatever their nation, religion, or eth­ nic origin, is that of laying the foundations of a global society that can reflect the oneness of human nature. The unification of the earth’s inhabitants is neither a remote utopian vision nor, ulti­ mately, a matter of choice. It constitutes the next, inescapable stage in the process—a stage toward which all the experience of past and present is impelling us. Until humanity acknowledges and ad­ dresses this issue, none of the ills afflicting our planet will find so­ lutions, because all the essential challenges of the age we have entered are global and universal, not particular or regional. Says Baha’u’llah: “So powerful is the light of unity that it can illuminate the whole earth;” and, “The well-being of mankind, its peace and security, are unattainable unless and until its unity is firmly estab­ lished.” Thus it is understandable why Baha’is view the 20th cen­ tury—with all its disasters—as “The Century of Light.” For these 100 years witnessed a transformation in both the way the earth’s inhabitants have begun to plan a collective future and in the way they are coming to regard one another. The hallmark of both has been a process of unification. Upheavals beyond the control of ex­ isting institutions compelled world leaders to begin putting in place new systems of global organization that would have been unthink­ able at the century’s beginning. As this was occurring, rapid ero­ sion overtook habits and attitudes that had divided people and nations through unnumbered centuries of conflict, and that had seemed likely to endure for ages to come. How does religion fit into the current scheme of things? To many, religion is irrelevant: It is preoccupied by vacant rituals, im­ poverished by superstitious traditions, and thoroughly corrupted by self-serving individuals and groups. Judging from today’s world, religion seems the least plausible answer to humanity’s manifold and increasingly urgent problems. Inter-religious conflict lies at the heart of almost every war; fundamentalism impels bloodthirsty ter­ rorist groups and spawns dangerous cults. The greatest obstacle to religion as a source of unity appears to be the differences found among the world’s great faiths. Surely the animosity that has long separated Christian from Jew and Muslim from Hindu can be over­ come. Indeed, a dispassionate study of these faiths shows that the FID ES ET essential message of each is the same. LIBERTAS Baha’is believe— 2000

113 2000

ID ES ET ET ES ID ti BRAS IBERTA r people have different talents, different psychological makeups. makeups. psychological different talents, different have people do. not should or not need we that do can we things the At evidence. for requirement scientific the and discoveries tific Honor uniqueness. Honor many are there that us reminds that proportion and humility, der, scien­ incorporate must religion dismissing, or opposing of Instead ceremony. and tion same time, it must restore the soul of science— the sense of won­ of sense the science— of soul the restore must it time, same dissent. of suppression pain. our feel us help to is religion alienation of and job the of Part fragmentation the society. by of wounded been has us of Each consciousness. individual in and society in values ethic. environmental an adopt to ple, on civilization as we know it. I submit that a “new” religion must— religion “new” a that submit I it. positively know impact we as may it how civilization and on religion of role the understand to order.” world sustainable a for condition the are which and global a of basis the form these that and religions, f the o teachings ior which are found in the teachings of the religions of the world world the of religions behav­ the of human for teachings the in guidelines found ancient are exist which ior already There . ic... eth to possible indeed is ground: it that a common suggests much find 1993) (“Towards Religions Chicago, orld’s W Ethic,” the of The Global past. the in Parliament has the it of as division— declaration futile and This antagonism bitter teachings. religion’s f their o desperate the interpretations truth, of narrow to possessors sole clinging the be to claim the is today stubborn refusal to appreciate and accept other faiths only leads to to leads only faiths other accept and appreciate to refusal stubborn God.” one of subjects from the are and inspiration Source, their derive heavenly one religion, or race whatever of world, mankind.” among unity action.” tablish and thought human transforms power, divine with which, human striving after truth, is the fruit of the creative Word o f God God f o Word creative the of fruit the is truth, after striving human 114 • Offer different paths for development. Acknowledge that that Acknowledge development. for paths different Offer • • Encourage people to grow in knowledge and self-reliance. self-reliance. and knowledge in grow to people Encourage and • figure charismatic a on f reliance o pitfalls the Avoid • • Offer a sage context for emotional release through celebra­ through release emotional for context sage a Offer • • Provide a radical therapy for the delirium of civilization. civilization. of delirium the for therapy radical a Provide feminine • and f masculine o balance a encourage and Embody exam­ • practical through us, inspire earth— the heal us Help • the in found is values core of set common a that affirm “We In our efforts to promote religious liberty it is important for us us for important is it liberty religious promote to efforts our In religion every of followers the to challenge foremost the Thus • That “there can be no doubt whatever that the peoples o f the f o peoples the that whatever doubt no be can “there That es­ to is • God of religion the of purpose essential “the That • of solely product the being from far religion, “true That • • Offer a compelling cosmology with mechanisms for change and adjustment so that the new religion does not simply turn into the new dogma. • Portray a vision of the Creator God—a vision that is loving, supportive, and accessible to every person. • Encourage members of society to love and protect children rather than abuse them. • Provide philosophical and practical tools for dealing with evil. • Generate an authentic sense of community that it may be­ come (in the words of Baha’u’llah) “distinguished for its abiding sense of security and faith, its high standard of rectitude, its com­ plete freedom from all forms of prejudice, the spirit of love among its members, and for the closely knit fabric of its social life.” The effort of will required to overcome the barriers that block the realization of Vasudeva Kutumbakkam (the “kingdom of God on earth”), foretold and sung throughout the ages by prophets, avatars, seers, and poets, must be galvanized by a vision of peace and prosperity in the fullest sense of the term—an awakening to the possibilities of the spiritual and material well-being of all the planet’s inhabitants. What is required of the peoples of the world is a measure of faith and resolve to match the enormous energies with which the Creator of all things has endowed this spiritual springtime of the race. Here, in the words of Baha’uTlah, is the Baha’i appeal: “Be united in counsel, be one in thought. May each mom be better than its eve and each morrow richer than its yesterday. Man’s merit lies in service and virtue and not in the pageantry of wealth and riches. Take heed that your words be purged from idle fancies and worldly desires and your deeds be cleansed of craftiness and suspicion. Dissipate not the wealth of your precious lives in the pur­ suit of evil and corrupt affection, nor let your endeavors be spent in promoting your personal interest. Be generous in your days of plenty, and be patient in the hour of loss. Adversity is followed by success and rejoicing follows woe. Guard against idleness and sloth, and cling unto that which profits mankind, whether young or old, whether high or low. Beware lest you sow tares of dissension among men or plant thorns of doubt in pure and radiant hearts.”

This article is adapted from an address Dr. Merchant presented at the 1RLA World Conference, New Delhi, November 1999.

FID ES ET LIBERTAS 2000

115 A Christian Perspective of Religious Freedom

Valsoti Thampu

Chairman Theological Research and Communication Institute New Delhi

Freedom is not a human creation, but a divine gift. It is a spiri­ tual concept. We are unfree materially, unfree mentally. We are truly free only in the sphere of the spirit. Jesus described the Holy Spirit as the embodiment of pure freedom. St. Paul saw life in Jesus Christ as freedom, life in sin as bondage. The goal of Jesus’ ministry was to set captives free. Jesus emphasized that freedom is inseparable from truth. Untruth is the logic of unfreedom. For all the importance ascribed to it, religious liberty is not an end in itself. It needs to be understood and practiced with reference to the spiritual goal of the “fullness of life.” Life is the primary value, not freedom. Freedom is important only because life is. Isolated from life, freedom makes no sense. The basic question is whether we are directed towards life or towards death. To be life- directed is to be free. Death is the ultimate unfreedom—a violation of the purpose of God in whose image and likeness we are created. Freedom is a spiritual concept because it is encoded in the sub­ stance o f our being. It is the imprint of the Creator on us. God is pure freedom. We are capable of freedom, but we are not freedom in its essence. Because God is pure freedom, its substance is safe against change and decay. Human beings, however, put freedom in perpetual risk of being turned into its opposite. But for this, the con­ cern for religious liberty, as with other forms of freedom, would be merely academic. Thus any concern for religious liberty must rest on two basic facts: First, freedom is the bedrock of our humanity; and second, we are poor custodians of freedom. We can use our freedom to undo our freedom—as did the prodigal son. We can also use our freedom to undo the freedom of others—as did the unmerci­ ful servant. How so? Because human ambivalence towards freedom makes us covet freedom for ourselves but deny it to others. We think our freedom has to grow at the expense of the freedom of oth­ FID ES ET ers. This notion is apparent in the sphere of religions in conflicted LIBERTAS relationship with other religions, resulting in serious implications 2000 for freedom of religion in practice, as is the case in India today.

116 Religious freedom does not exist in a vacuum. It combines with other forces, especially political and institutional. Power cre­ ates inequalities that impact freedom. Ironically, the fiercest enemy of religious freedom all along has been any religious establishment preoccupied with its own power and control. Jesus recognized this. He pointed out that at no time in human history could people toler­ ate their own prophets. It was the powerful religious establishment that masterminded the murder of Jesus. (In contrast, the state has actually done better in the protection of religious liberty.) Intolerant religious establishments do not limit themselves to combating exter­ nal enemies. They are fiercer towards their own prophets and reformers, routinely burning them, crucifying them, as heretics and schismatics—whose extermination is determined a religious duty of the faithful. Nothing is more symptomatic of the depravity of a reli­ gious establishment than this. In point of fact, the more degraded a religious tradition, the more intolerant it is to both dissent within and differences without. The world of freedom has two spheres—the sphere of inner freedom and the sphere of outer freedom. They interact with and impact each other. Only those persons who are inwardly free can enter fully into the creative potentialities of outward freedom. At the same time, outward freedom is vitally important for manifest­ ing the hidden treasures of inner freedom. Outer freedom has al­ ways been more fiercely contested. Yet it is inner freedom that is basic to the religious domain. The enemies of inner freedom lurk within one’s very self or within one’s own religious establishment. In a spiritual sense, we are our worst enemies. No external enemy prevents us from living up to the ideals and values our scriptures teach us. It is, instead, something within us and among us. No enemy of our communities of faith prevents us from upholding jus­ tice, truth, and freedom. It is the vested interests within our respec­ tive religious communities. From a spiritual angle, the foremost agenda for religious freedom is the struggle for personal liberation, as well as the spiritual reformation of one’s religious community. It is not crying wolf against the putative enemies of the faith prowling in the world beyond our communal boundaries. Religious intolerance is indeed a symptom of religious deca­ dence. But it is naive to assume that only the detractors of one’s own religion are decadent. More often than not, aggressors and victims unwittingly, but actively, collaborate to create an atmo­ sphere of hate that reduces the scope of religious freedom. This basis for this collaboration is the exaggerated importance ascribed FI DES ET to the external, exhibitionist, public flourishes of a particular reli­ LIBERTAS gion. The shell is deemed all-important, the kernel of no conse­ 2000

117 quence. This is where the Pharisees stood in the time of Jesus. It was precisely their (ir)religious posture that accounted for their penchant for persecution in the name of religion, and for their ex­ treme cruelty in the name of the God of love. Jesus denounced this dangerous attitude. He urged his followers to emphasize inward truth more than outward postures and prescriptions of religious practices. Jesus knew that freedom from irreligious ideas of reli­ gion, as well the unspiritual practices of religion, was crucial for religious freedom. The more we absolutize the external, superficial trappings of religion, the greater our alienation from faith’s inner resources—and greater still our offense in the eyes of others. As religious life is increasingly relocated to public space, religion will be caught in the culture wars of the times and resisted by the vested interests of the day. This is not only a political issue, but a most serious spiritual problem. The quest for religious liberty looks toward two major spiri­ tual frontiers. First, we need to be vigilant about threats to freedom of religion, and then engage them. How do we do this? Jesus in­ sists that evil must be overcome, not resisted. This concept gives religious freedom an inner scope and direction too profound to be turned into simplistic action plans. It is critical that we who cam­ paign for religious liberty in the world are fully committed to free­ dom in the soul. Second—and more importantly, we need to enlarge our inner capacity for freedom. The core of religious free­ dom is freedom from the dictates and distortions of one’s own self—freedom from the tyranny of one’s instincts, impulses, pas­ sions, and preferences. The teaching that we should love our ene­ mies and “turn the other cheek,” rather than pay back in the same coin, is an invitation to inner freedom. Thus freedom of religion can never ignore the freedom to do what is good. To the extent that our inner religious freedom is positive and creative, we reinforce the case we make for safeguarding, even enlarging, outer religious freedom. Religious liberty that engineers a fortress against one’s enemies is fundamentally unspiritual and unsafe. The basic discov­ ery is this: We have no enemies; therefore we do not need to be protected from anyone. This will require a re-examination of the reigning model of inter-religious interaction. The religions of the world are in con­ flict. They are mutually alienated. This state of lovelessness has se­ rious consequences for religious liberty in practice. Freedom can 6 survive and be perfected only in a climate of love. God is love. FID ES ET Love is the essence of true spirituality. Love must become the LIBERTAS essence of a new world of human freedom. Thus a core principle 2000 of religious liberty has to be the freedom to love—to love God ab­

118 solutely and one’s neighbor equally. Freedom to love one’s neigh­ bor includes freedom from any ideological compulsion to hate one’s neighbor. Nothing is more inimical to the cause of human freedom than hate. And present efforts to spread the poison of hate and to create a culture of violence are the foremost issues con­ fronting all of us who care so much about religious liberty. We need to ask ourselves what it means to reposition our communities of faith as models of mutual love without sacrifice of basic doctri­ nal principles. Because the discipline and responsibilities of freedom are not native to human nature, our passionate craving for freedom notwithstanding, we have to push the quest for religious liberty to a commitment to train people in the art and science of liberty. The history of human experience demonstrates that unless people are trained for freedom they will turn what liberty they have into a tool of oppression. India’s five-decade political experiment proves be­ yond doubt that it is dangerous and naive to equate freedom with independence. Millions of our people remain strangers to the fruits of freedom. Indeed, the freedom of some as a threat to the freedom of others is a sinister reality. This is not an accident. Nor does it betoken the perversity of our national fate. What we see today are the symptoms of spiritual bankruptcy resulting from a merely secu­ lar idea of nation-building that holds independence and freedom to be one and the same. Thus India remains naive about the dynamics of human nature. The seed of fascism is the delusion that freedom for another is incompatible with my own, that anyone who is different from me is therefore hostile to me. But Jesus maintains that I must love my neighbor as myself, irrespective of who or what he or she is. Only in a culture of love and compassion wherein I learn to limit the lust of self, wherein I leam to accommodate the needs of others, will religious liberty be safe. The golden principle of every human free­ dom is the Golden Rule. To you, to me, Jesus says: “Tn every­ thing, do to others as you would have them do to you.’” This is the Christian perspective of religious freedom.

Condensed and edited from an address Dr. Thampu presented at the IRLA World Conference, New Delhi, November 1999.

FID ES ET LIBERTAS 2000

119 — a Sanatana Dharma

Since all life is sacred, the practice of Non-violence. Because Hindu religious philosophy is based on experience, Hinduism knows no heretics, forGod is everywhere and in all The ancient Persians had a name for India: Hindustan. They Ahimsa: 120 Hinduism. However, Hindu tradition defines itselfas the religion of Inquire and be free.” Ahimsa, or non-injury, is a must. A foremost ethical It isprinciple abstaining of from causing harm to all beings. This philosophy saints, sages, and seers, each ofwhom can claim the role of a Swami Gokulananda Secretary ofthe Ramakrishna NewMission Delhi Such a view suggests that the religions ofIndian origin— edging the many paths—even those that seem to Whencontradict Hindus its own. believe that God is everywhere andfind init isall things,impossible they to hate, to injure, or to aggressivelyers. convertHere oth­then are two important tenets ofHinduism: larreligionFirst, no particu­ teaches the only wayto salvation; all genuinereligious and understanding. Second, all life is sacred, to be loved and revered. “Believe as others do or suffer.” Rather, it says, “Know thyself. Hinduism, Ahimsa is non-violence—physical, mental,of non-injury emotional. is based on the beliefs that harm caused to others arise at a particular period ofhuman originate history, with a religionany single that prophet. did not based Hinduism on super-conscious is unique in being experiences and spiritual realizations ofprophet whose own foundational able.spiritual Like theexperiences Ganges, Hinduare verifi­ tradition has flowed for millennia. A Hindu Response Violenceto and Intolerance called the people ofIndia Hindus and theirreligion Hindu Dharma.Buddhism, Jainism, or Sikhism, to cite three—are different facets of things. Every instinct ofHinduism rejoices intolerance, in acknowl­ paths are facets ofGod’s power, love, and light, deserving oftolerance personal discovery, and the testing ofthings, it does not say, unfailingly returns to oneself,all peopleand that and the all Divinethings. shines forth in timeless religion comprising eternal values, a religion that did not the Vedas as practiced by the Aryan race: IDES ET IBERTAS

L. J 2000 To elaborate: The Hindu is convinced that violence he com­ mits will be returned by a cosmic process, if not in this life, then in another. The Hindu’s belief in the existence of God everywhere as a pervasive, self-effulgent energy and consciousness, creates an at­ titude of sublime tolerance and acceptance of others. Actually, the term “tolerance” is insufficient to describe the compassion and rev­ erence the Hindu holds for the intrinsic sacredness within all be­ ings. Ahimsa thereby becomes the higher-nature basis for the actions of all Hindus. Says the Bhagavad Gita: “Non-violence, truth, freedom from anger, renunciation, serenity, aversion to fault­ finding, sympathy for all beings, peace from greedy cravings, gen­ tleness, modesty, steadiness, energy, forgiveness, fortitude, purity, good will, freedom from pride—these belong to a man who is bom for heaven.” The practice of non-violence out of cowardice has no merit. Real non-violence is the greatest strength and endurance a man can attain. It is the greatest courage coupled with the greatest love. It is the total absence of hatred. In the animal kingdom, struggle for ex­ istence may be necessary because, according to evolutionary the­ ory, the law of “survival of the fittest” operates there. But man is not an animal—and should not behave like an animal. He should transcend the laws of the animal kingdom. In the kingdom of God, the law is love and sacrifice. Thus a spiritual man, filled with com­ passion and love for others, feels the miseries of others more than they do themselves, including those who behave arrogantly or vio­ lently. He holds others in love, even at great personal sacrifice. Self-realization is the basis of Ahimsa. As stated in the Isavasya Upanishad, when a person sees the Self in all people and all people in the Self, then he hates none. And yet an aspirant to Ahimsa must be extremely careful in dealing with others: he should not be too soft or yielding. The absence of any grit will re­ sult in a most troublesome spiritual life. Facing the evils of the world takes tremendous strength and strict self-control. For one may outwardly put up with others, but within bum with indigna­ tion. This is most harmful. The practice of non-violence within, as well as without, increases mental strength, for only the strong can be non-violent. Mahatma Gandhi was the greatest modem exponent of Ahimsa. Said he: “Non-violence is a perfect stage. It is a goal towards which all mankind move naturally, though consciously. Man does not be­

come divine till he personifies innocence in himself. Only then FID ES ET does he truly become a man. In our present stage we are partly man LIBERTAS and partly beast, and in our arrogance say that we truly fulfill the 2000

121 One may matam. shared by all. Both tattwam 4— is a Hinduism stresses the plurality ofpaths 2 2 + 2 = Religious tolerance. Edited from an address Swami Gokulananda presented at the IRLA World The Hindu term for a personal preference is The pacific character ofHindu civilization results from the 122 ideal ofAhimsa. Ifit is a fact that the masses ofIndia, in spite of at the same goal, God, every existpath and must thrive. be respected, This fundamental allowedfor absolute to teaching freedom ofHinduism in matters provides offaith and worship. Everyoneinto confrontation has with others. lieve that retaliation is the law ofour being, whereas in every servation ofthe mutual relationshipalso calls between for religious matam toleration andtattwam in belief and practice. When the (Ahimsa, self-renunciation, truthfulness, among many) and es- fire is hot, water is wet, countries, it is due to the principle ofnon-violence. scripture we find that retaliation is nowhere obligatory, onlyour being.per­ For the highest perfectionhighest restraint.”is unattainable without the Conference, New Delhi, India, November 1999. matam and tattwam are fundamental to human life. The Hindu ob­ principles ofthe plurality ofpaths and the mutual relationship be­ chewal ofvices (theft, murder,tuated, hatred, then malice, not only anger, is religious greed)communal arefreedom ac­ peace guaranteed, and harmony but are realized. prefer the Christian path, orprefers the Hindu, certain Jewish, foods, or specificMuslim. stylesOne ofclothing. A universal fact— to God and the oneness/sameness ofGod. Since all paths converge the right to follow his own ways as long as the ways do not come their terrible poverty, are far less brutal than the masses in other purpose ofour species whenthe we measure deliver blowofanger for blowrequired and developforthe purpose. We pretend to be­ missible. It is the restraint that is obligatory. Restraint is the law of tween matam and tattwam are realized, andwhen love ofvirtues IDES ET IBERTAS

L. J 2000 The Sacred Fire: A Zoroastrian Response to Conflict and Violence

Ardeshri M. Sethna

Lieutenant General (Retired) President, Delhi Parsi Anjuman New Delhi

The world in general and India in particular are again witness­ ing intolerance and violence for which religion is blamed. Inasmuch as the religions of the world aim at a union of God and man, intolerance and violence in the name of religion are an aber­ ration. That said, let me come directly to the nature of conflict and violence as brought out in the principal Zoroastrian scriptures—the Avesta (a major division of which is called the Yasna); the Denkard; and the Bundahishn. In the story of creation is the legend of “The Soul of Creation.” Gaush Urva, the cow, complains to Ahura Mazda, the lord of wisdom: For whom have you brought me into being? Who shaped me? Wrath and rapine, aggression and violence crush me. No one is my protector except you, O lord, so reveal to me the caring herdsman (Yasna 29.1). In answer to Gaush Urva’s prayer, Ahura Mazda appoints Zarathushtra as her protector—and he is “blessed with sweetness of speech” (Yasna 29.8). Gaush Urva is not satisfied. She wails that she must now submit “to the words of a feeble man,” when what she really longed for was a powerful warrior to help her with the “might of his hands” (Yasna 29.9). But in the very next verse she blesses the prophet and his followers and prays they may es­ tablish a peaceful existence through the “good mind,” for both the herdsman and his herds and mankind (Yasna 29.10). In Yasna 28:1 we find Gaush Urva, with a voice like that “of a thousand men calling out at one time,” demanding justice. In one stride she reaches the stars, then the moon, and finally the sun. But they are helpless. Only her appointed protector, Zarathushtra, will fight to bring justice to her and her herds. We infer here that the teaching of Zarathushtra is not merely for human beings—the poor and the downtrodden—who cry out for justice, but for all of cre­ FID ES ET ation: humankind, animals, and plant life. Little wonder the reli­ LIBERTAS gion of Zarathushtra has been called the first ecological religion of 2000

123

Atash Acting with hu­ * The Gathas oZarathushtra: f The Zoroastrian Faith). He himself, in his wisdom,is the creator oftruth which harmonious in growth, active in work, Ahura M azda’s first thoughtblazed into myriads ofsparksand filled of thelight entire heavens. upholds his supreme mind (Yasna 31.7). Grant me also offspring risingwith toinborn perfection, wisdom, able to rule over lands and to guide assemblies, who shall advance the progress ofour home, ofour village, delivering from bondage, and high aspiring, and who shall make brighter(Translated the honor by ofI. J. our S. Taraporewala.)land (Yasna 62.4, 5). (Praise to the Angel ofFire): The three tenets ofZoroastrianism are good thought, good Yet side by side with this high philosophy stands great practi­ Cyrus II the Great (b. between 590 and 580 B.C.; d.529 B.C.) But even empires founded on faith and high religious princi- 124 word, and good deed. Thoughtstant, arebut likeunseen the stars—beautiful,in the light waxing,of day. dis­ Wordswaning, are andlike thesometimes moon—different. not thereThey at areall. likeBut thedeeds sun—strong,of areenergy. Zoroastrianism powerful, the veryemphasizes engine the action ofgood signifiesdeeds thefor indestructible essenceend. Heof lifeis the without lord ofbeginningwisdom fromor whom emanates all creation. Niayesh is an example ofthe Zoroastrian combination ofpracticality with the world (see Piloo Nanavutty: Hymns in Praise o fWisdom). they help not only man, but the whole universe. And Ahura Mazda cality for life and action. Daily the Zoroastrian prays the whose borders extended fromicy India held to together Greece. an Hisempire innovative cultures,consisting pol­ andof veryreligious different traditions. peoples,dynasty, The Cyrusgreatest II brokeofthe Achaemenidwith despoiler.the tradition Instead ofvictor ofsuppressing as avenger ethnic and and religious aspirations,dom (see S. A. Nigosian: and called for the rebuilding ofthe temple ofYahweh in wisdom and faith. In a short time he became the emperor ofPersia he provided a high degree ofcultural, political, and religiousmane free­compassion, he released the Jews ofBabylon fromJerusalem. captivity No wonder the asBible the (Isaiah anointed 44:28-45:4) shepherd describes ofhumanthe Lord. him rights, As thethe world’s edict offirstCyrus trance charter II theof of theGreat United is inscribedNations Zarathushtra’satin Newthe en­ York (see Aspi “Frasho-Kereti D. Moddie:”). IDES ET IBERTAS

Ll J 2000 pies have their ups and downs. Two hundred and some years later, Alexander of Macedonia stormed into Persia and defeated the army of Darius III. The period of foreign domination by Alexander and his Seleucid successors was disastrous for the development of the Zoroastrian community. The Greek invasion and destruction were so catastrophic that Alexander himself is depicted in Zoroastrian tradition as the guzastag (accursed), an epithet applied to Ahriman (the adversary). Zoroastrian scriptures record the mate­ rial damage and moral crimes committed by Alexander and his co­ hort: temples sacked; priests slaughtered; holy texts “written on ox hides with gold ink” burned (Bundahishn 33.14; Denkard 5.3.14; Arda Wiraz Namag 1.1-11). The Zoroastrians’ greatest loss was the death of their priests who, as “living books,” handed down all tradition from one priestly generation to the next (see Nigosian). Nonetheless, some fragments survived. Gradually—and especially during the long rule of the Parthians in the first centuries after Christ—the Zoroastrians regained their former strength. During Persia’s Sasanian dynasty, however, the purity of the faith was compromised. In 651 Yazdagird III was so swiftly and completely defeated that to this day Zoroastrians speak of the wrack and ruin that came from the Arab conquerors. The empires of Persia ended, but Zoroastrianism survived. Recent archaeological evidence indicates that it moved east, exist­ ing for some 300 years in what is now western China. By the 10th century a small band of Zoroastrians, carrying their sacred fire, had come by sea from southern Persia, the land of Pars. They found refuge at Sanjan on the west coast of India. Today they are called the Parsis. From Indian soil has sprung Parsi flowering in all fields of human endeavor. The multi-cultured tapestry of Hindu philosophy and the general way of life in India provided the rich environment in which the refugees from Persia were permitted to settle and live, like “sugar in the milk” of India’s human kindness. A century after their landing, the Parsis raised their own army to aid the king of Sanjan in fighting off invaders from North Gujarat. Initially, the campaign succeeded, but a year later the Parsi commander, Ardeshri (whose name I bear), was killed, and the force scattered. As they had done earlier in Persia, the Parsis, with their sacred fire, retreated to hill caves at Bahrot.

* I have gone into this in some detail because the Parsi

Zoroastrians have a long tradition of reverent service to their most FID ES ET sacred and potent symbol—a symbol they have cherished and pro­ LIBERTAS tected from time immemorial: the sacred fire. In the face of conflict 2000

125

(the zarwane kusti and the )is the battleground of sudreh Blake andZoroastrianism.) Zarathushtra’s Teachingsfor at the end oftime, he may (gumezism frasho-kereti Ultimately, with the coming ofthe Soyshant (the Evil will simply not go away from this world since it has mixed it­ Edited from an address Gen. Sethna presented at the IRLA World Conference, And more must be said about the matter offaith and conflict. Zoroastrianism, the religion ofchoice, gives each man and Modern Times). The good Zoroastrian wearing the conflicting forces oflife (H. M. Homji: selfwith the good. The mixed state 126 soldier ofAhura Mazda, the lord eternal, who is ever engaged in salvation for thejust” (Yasna 30.11). Heaven or hell is in each savior), the “world will be made whole.” Each one will pass Knowing the nature oflife, Zoroastrianism realizes that conflict is With hands outstretched in reverence, he prays to this lord on his like passing through a streamis thatofwarm in the milk. Zoroastrian The point faith tofinal note all salvation.must here cross When this riverthe world to lovedobtain is madeones andwhole, rejoice. all willFather rejoinand will brothertheir say to to son, sister: and “Wherehusband hast to thouwife, been these many quotedyears, byand S. H. Camas in her thesis and violence, it is the emblem oftheir cause and their faith. The tenets offaith and a righteousgood word,lifestyle and based good ondeeds good enable thought, the Parsi Zoroastrianand to takesurvive. it forward to conflict and violence. cotton shirt ofpurity and the girdle ofwool) wears the uniform of a feet, not his knees. He is toldwithto “listenan attentive to the noblestear” and teachings then(Yasna decide 28.1). the pathThe truehe is tosoldier followlie. choosesEach person to follow must truth “discriminate andchoice” fight the (Yasnaman to man 30.2). andDepending makeend resulthis on his follows: choice and“A longhis periodaction, ofthe suffering for the wicked, and flict—a conflict which must go on until the end oftime— inevitable. akarane khadate. the conflict between good andthe evil lie. or, Hemore is a correctly,co-worker, thenot truth a servant, and ofthe lord in this battle. man’s heart. The outcome depends on how he handles the con­ through a stream. Forhim whoriver chooses ofmolten the lie,lead; it willbut forfeel him like who a has fought for truth, it will be what was thejudgment uponthy soul?” (From the Pahlavi text as woman the freedom to choose. “As he grows, so shall he reap.” As long as he continues to fight to make the whole world whole bend, but he will not break. This is the Zoroastrian response to New Delhi, November 1999. IDES ET IBERTAS

IL J 2000 Fides et Libertas

2000

SPECIAL SECTION II

Religious Freedom World Report 2000

General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists Department of Public Affairs and Religious Liberty

April 2000

FID ES ET LIBERTAS 2000

127 Religious Freedom World Report 2000

THE SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH AND RELIGIOUS FREEDOM Organized on May 20, 1863, in Battle Creek, Michigan, U.S.A., the Seventh-day Adventist Church has more than 11 million mem­ bers and represents a community of 25 million who are active in over 200 nations of the world. The Annual Statistical Report for 1998 showed that the church employed 165,213 persons who staffed 6,329 hospitals and medical centers, media centers, orphanages, ele­ mentary and secondary schools, universities, and other institutions. Since its beginning, the Seventh-day Adventist Church has de­ fended religious freedom for all. Under its patronage several religious liberty associations have been established, among which, in 1893, the International Religious Liberty Association (IRLA). The IRLA became a non-sectarian association in 1946. Its president for 2000 is Dr. Bert Beach, general secretary of the Council on Interchurch Relations of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists. This report focuses on the current experience of the Seventh- day Adventist Church, but does not neglect a broader outlook. Its content was supplied by officials of the church’s Department of Public Affairs and Religious Liberty stationed in various parts of the world. Additionally, we received information from other recog­ nized non-governmental organizations and from reliable private correspondents. We are particularly grateful for the volume of ma­ terial supplied by Adventist News Network (ANN), Adventist Press Service (APD), Compass Direct, Keston Institute, and Religion Today. Contact the Department of Public Affairs and Religious Liberty, General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, 12501 Old Columbia Pike, Silver Spring, Maryland 20904-6600, U.S.A. Our phone num­ ber is (301) 680-6680. Reach us by fax at (301) 680-6695.

John Graz, Director ([email protected]) Richard Lee Fenn, Associate Director (104474.245 [email protected]) Jonathan Gallagher, Associate Director ([email protected]) FID ES ET Bert B. Beach, General Secretary, Council on Interchurch Relations LIBERTAS ([email protected]) 2000

128 A DIVIDED WORLD What is new? Our 1999 Religious Freedom World Report un­ derlined the reality of increasing persecution around the world. This report for 2000 further documents the fact that we live in a world of religious persecution. Some examples: In some states of India, tensions between Hindu extremists and the Christian minor­ ity remain high. On certain islands of Indonesia civil war broke out between Muslims and Christians. Seventh-day Adventists were not spared. Members lost their lives; churches were destroyed. Adventists are still in difficulty in southern Mexico’s Chiapas state. In various parts of the former Soviet Union the principle of reli­ gious freedom challenges the new political authorities and the leaders of the dominant religions. The situation in Turkmenistan il­ lustrates the problem. With the specific permission of President Niyazov, in 1992 Seventh-day Adventists began constructing a new church building in Ashkhabad. But in 1994, a new and more restrictive law was passed requiring all churches to apply for regis­ tration. Adventists provided the required papers, but the govern­ ment refused to grant recognition. According to Keston News Service, Adventists endured months of harassment and threats leading up to Saturday, November 13, 1999, when, during the con­ gregation’s evening service, security agents and other workers commenced demolishing the new church building. Traditional democracies are not beneath the politics of reli­ gious intolerance. France led a group of countries which published official lists of sects, thus subjecting religious minorities to govern­ ment-sponsored persecution. While the Seventh-day Adventist Church is not identified as a sect on the French list, adult members and their children nevertheless now encounter more problems than before as they seek Sabbath accommodation in public schools and universities. The Inter-Ministerial Commission’s report on the “The Struggle Against Sects” referred indirectly to Adventist teachers who asked to have Saturdays off because of their religious convictions. Opposition to accommodation is rising in France’s overseas territories where the Adventist population is significant. A request for a religious day of rest gets no more consideration than a request for a day off for a sporting event or other leisure activity. Heretofore there prevailed a climate of positive understanding and good relations, but that has deteriorated markedly. Religious lib­ erty is just not seen as a fundamental freedom, but rather as an un­ acceptable exigency.

But note the happy resolution of the Cape Verde case. FID ES ET Adventists arrested, tortured, and jailed in July of 1998 for al­ LIBERTAS legedly desecrating Catholic churches were found not guilty and 2000

129 In spite offavorable legislation, Adventists have Legislation is not against religious freedom, but : : Government and legislation provide religious Indeed, too many countries assert “no exceptions” and block A report such as this tends to emphasize the bad—the viola­ Category 2: Category 3: The Religious Freedom World Report 2000 places the nations Category 1 130 the rights ofreligious minorities.found Even in this if perfectionworld, we would is not to applaudbe several countries whichfreedom. Italy and Spain lead in Southern Europe. In Northern Anthony Alexander was finallyanti-government found innocent activity.ofall chargesThe ate presiding ofrelease judge from prison.ordered his immedi­ Europe, Norway and Sweden have avoided discrimination against Latin American nations extend great tolerance ofand support for Religious Intolerance Abdelfattah Amor and the role ofthe UN tions ofreligious liberty. But havewe must good not records ignore in theupholding nations religiouswhich freedom and protecting have maintained and even reinforced the principle ofreligious minority religions. The Unitedactive States defense is to be of commendedreligious freedom for its on a global basis. Manyreligious ofthe diversity. In Mexico,mentioned for example, above, the shouldChiapas not conflict be confused with the government’s recognized and legislation is bein forceaccommodated providing forfor AdventistsSabbath Colombiaobservance. to is takingIn a theworld side divided, ofreligious liberty. released. Thejudge wryly declaredbeing Adventist.that their onlyAnd “wrong”in Sri Lanka, was we are pleased to report, Pastor some problems in public schools and in the workplace. freedom for all. No problems exist for Seventh-day Adventists. CLASSIFICATIONS ofthe world, as well as certainegories, territorial from entities,most tolerantin one toof fiveleast cat­ tolerant: efforts to establish religious freedom.tory’s lesson:They haveReligious not learnedintolerance his­ and persecution do notthe lead door to to dialogue and accommodation.the excellent Wework are of thankfulUnited Nationsalso for Special RapporteurCommission for on Human Rightsfreedom, in Geneva. as definedIn the by end, the religiousUniversaland other Declaration international of Humaninstruments, Rights is an effective factor for global general openness to religious Theminorities. good newsConsider there alsois that Colombia. the Seventh-day Adventist Church is peace, harmony, and stability. justice and peace. We are thankful then for the nations that open IDES ET IBERTAS

Li. J 2000 religious extremists, authorities, and/or the media create difficulties for Adventists. Category 4: The government has voted restrictive legislation. Seventh-day Adventists encounter problems practicing their faith and fulfilling their evangelistic mission. Category 5: There is no religious freedom. The Seventh-day Adventist Church is banned. The difference between Category 1 and Category 2 is subject to interpretation. In most cases, we have accepted the classifica­ tions applied by our correspondents. This year we again note that an American or Canadian or Brazilian Adventist, for example, is likely to be more critical of his or her nation with its pro-religious liberty climate, than an Adventist living in a country with many re­ strictions to religious freedom. In other words, where religious freedom is a real human right, minor restrictions, such as school and workplace accommodations for Sabbath observance, are more readily identified as problems. Where religious freedom is only an elusive concept, such restrictions are simply accepted as the price to pay. The difference between Category 3 and Category 4 is more significant when it comes to the violation of religious freedom. Category 5 represents extreme violation of religious freedom. For the Seventh-day Adventist Church, Syria remains the rare country where the church was expelled after being there for decades. Opposition rising from the nation’s traditional Christian church seems to be more decisive than the will of the government. Ordinarily, Syria would be listed in Category 3 or 4, but for the Seventh-day Adventist Church, Category 5 is more accurate.

FID ES ET LIBERTAS 2000

131 Djibouti Nigeria Sudan Mauritania CATEGORY 3 Comoros Niger CATEGORY 5 AFRICA ofCongo Republic Benin Ethiopia Senegal Somalia Burkina Faso Eritrea Kenya Mozambique CATEGORY 2 Botswana Central African Chad Congo Democratic Republic Gambia Malawi T anzaniaT Togo Uganda Zambia Zimbabwe Cape Verde is a Portuguese-speaking country The country offers religious freedom and rela­ Cameroon Cape Verde In July of 1998 Jose Maria Monteiro Rodriguez and Jorge 132 Liberia Mali Rwanda Seychelles Burundi Studies are being conducted to determine the number ofstudents Guinea-Bissau Madagascar Mauritius CATEGORY 1 Cameroon Cote d ’Ivoire Equatorial Guinea CATEGORY 1 into Catholic churches and destroying icons or images. The gov­ Guinea Adalberto Ramos Tavares weredesecrating arrested andCatholicjailed churcheson charges and ofproperty on the island of tions with the government areexaminations good. The onlypublic problem schools. is AdventistwhenSaturday they declinestudents tomay take loseexaminations a year scheduled on Saturdays.effected. Meanwhile, solutions are not always easy. often small islands south ofAboutSenegal, 90 offpercentthe west of thecoast nation’s ofareAfrica. Roman approximately Catholic. 400,000 Seventh-day citizens3,000. Adventists Since 1992,number therejust have beenover incidences ofpersons ernmentbreaking has consistently blamedWhile members some arrests ofthe have“opposition.” been made, no case has yet been proven. Cape Verde Gabon IDES ET IBERTAS

Il J 2000 Boavista. A third man, Benvindo de Cruz Ramos, was accused of being an accomplice, but was not held. Monteiro Rodriguez and Ramos Tavares spent a year in jail during their protracted trial. Pastor Joao Felix Monteiro, president of the Seventh-day Adventist Church’s Cape Verde Mission, reported that while incarcerated, the men were subjected to ongoing torture, including beatings to the head and stomach, starvation, and electric shock, all in an at­ tempt to force them to confess to crimes they did not commit. The trial was unique in its length and the public interest it en­ gendered. Pastor Monteiro stated that the press considered it “the longest and the most polemical case ever handled by the judiciary in Cape Verde.” Not one of the more than 40 prosecution witnesses contributed to a conviction. Perhaps the most telling aspect of this case was the three defendants’ demeanor. As Judge Helena Barreto emphatically noted in her verdict of acquittal: “The only ‘crime’ which the three Adventists committed, if that constitutes a crime, was to be Seventh-day Adventists.” The ordeal of the three Cape Verdians ended July 26, 1999. Cote d’Ivoire Religious freedom is respected. To illustrate: On October 10, 1998, two Seventh-day Adventists were chased out of Elokate because they declined to attend a village meeting on Saturday. The local chief declared the Seventh-day Adventist reli­ gion “closed down and no longer authorized.” Church members sought refuge in neighboring villages. But by May 26, 1999, the matter was resolved through the intervention of Adventist church leaders and local government authorities.

CATEGORY 2 Democratic Republic of Congo There are Sabbath accom­ modation conflicts in both public and private schools. At the University of Kinshasa, where examinations are conducted on Saturdays, a meeting was held with university administrators and faculty along with the government’s minister of human rights. Eritrea Predominantly Christian with a small Muslim pop­ ulation. Kenya There is a small Muslim population, but Kenya is mainly Christian. Mozambique Seventh-day Adventist Church leaders are holding discussions with the Ministry of Education concerning classes and examinations conducted on the Sabbath. Tanzania Almost half the population is Muslim and half

Christian. Tanzania does not grant Sabbath accommodation in its FID ES ET public schools. There are other intolerant restrictions against reli­ LIBERTAS gious freedom. 2000

133 Uganda Mostly Christian with a small Muslim population.

CATEGORY 3 Nigeria Christians became the targets of violence when the government of Kaduna state proposed the introduction of Islamic law (Shari’a). Two Seventh-day Adventists were killed during two days of religious conflict that began February 21 though they were not involved in the protest marches against Shari’a. Adventist News Network reported on February 29 that “the first victim, Jonathan Yohanna, was a teacher at the local Adventist nursery school. The second, Zacharia Idi Yaugo, was killed in front of his wife and children.” Stated an Adventist pastor who was on the scene: “It all began when a Christian organization mobilized its members to protest in­ troduction of Shari’a law in Kaduna state. The peaceful procession lasted barely an hour when some pro-Shari’a Muslim groups inter­ vened to disrupt the march. There was a clash. Missiles were thrown. There were violent fist fights. Guns, machetes, and bows and arrows suddenly emerged. Cans containing petrol were pro­ duced, cigarette lighters were employed, and then the bubble burst. Many Christians were killed outright. Others who were able to reach their homes did not live long enough to relate their experi­ ences. A number escaped to army barracks and police stations. Many big shops in major streets went up in flames. The raging fire spread to virtually all parts of Kaduna metropolis.” In Muslim dominated Zamfara state, Shari’a went into effect at the beginning of the year. Two other largely Muslim states have also moved to adopt Shari’a as the basic civil code. ANN reported that Nigerian Christians oppose the introduction of religious law as an infringement of their constitutional right to freely practice their own faith. Established in Nigeria in 1923, the Seventh-day Adventist Church lists nearly 200,000 members. Sudan Although an Islamic government is in power, Christians in Khartoum, including Seventh-day Adventists, have a fair degree of freedom. According to our correspondent, Adventists conduct their mission without too many difficulties. They build chapels, hold worship services in a rather public way, and even bap­ tize converts in Nile. Dr. Bertil Wiklander, president of the Advent­ ist church’s Trans-European Division, and other leaders have established helpful relationships with Sudan’s social planning and

FID ES ET foreign relations ministers. ADRA International, the church’s global LIBERTAS development and relief agency, is especially welcomed in Sudan. 2000

134 EAST ASIA AND THE PACIFIC

CATEGORY 1 CATEGORY 2 CATEGORY 3 American Samoa Cambodia China Australia French Polynesia Mongolia Cook Islands Japan Fiji Korea CATEGORY 4 Kiribati New Caledonia Indonesia New Zealand Niue Nauru Papua New Guinea Vanuatu Vietnam Pitcairn Western Samoa Solomon Islands Tonga Tuvalu

CATEGORY I American Samoa No problems. Citizens are protected by the U.S. Constitution. Australia Complete freedom though there is but little legis­ lation to protect religious freedom. Occasional instances of reli­ gious discrimination resulting from problems which occur with Saturday-work expectations. Cook Islands The Seventh-day Adventist Church is one of four officially recognized denominations. But the government is increasingly pressured by the dominant churches to legislate Sunday observance. Fiji The constitution provides for the separation of church and state and religious freedom for all. But in mid 2000 a coup fol­ lowed by a military counter-coup brought into question Fiji’s com­ mitment to democracy in a pluralistic society. Kiribati Seventh-day Adventists are well respected. There are no real problems. New Zealand Full freedom. No problems save for occa­ sional cases concerning Saturday-work expectations. Papua New Guinea The constitution protects religious freedom. There are some tensions rising from inter-church activity. Pitcairn No problems. This famous island remains under British control. Solomon Islands There is constitutional protection. Usually there are no problems, but civil tension has created difficulties. Tonga Seventh-day Adventists are well respected. No problems. FID ES ET Tuvalu Adventists are well respected in spite of the domi­ LIBERTAS nant state church of Tuvalu. 2000

135 CATEGORY 2 Cambodia When the current government of this tradition­ ally Buddhist nation took power in 1993, the new constitution granted religious freedom. Every citizen is guaranteed the liberty to choose his or her religion. But Cambodia’s southern province of Kamput has experienced conflicts between certain religious groups. Governor Ly Sou and Vong Samet, head of the province’s religious affairs department, requested Seventh-day Adventist Pastor Ung Chan Tha to organize a conference to include the lead­ ers of all religions in the region. In turn, Pastor Ung appealed to Pastor M. Daniel Walter, the International Religious Liberty Association representative for Southeast Asia. Conference invitations were sent to the Buddhists’ chief monk and to all other leaders of religions in the province. The governor and the religious affairs director contacted the national government which then sent Senator Sales Sen, a member of the National Assembly, and Ismail Osmon, undersecretary in the Ministry of Cults and Religions. The conference was held on July 26, 1999, with 35 in atten­ dance. In the dialogue following the speeches, one of the religious leaders expressed the view of those present: “This has been a good experience for us to come and see each other’s faces. Now we can understand and respect each other and fulfill our responsibility to build a better Cambodia.” This was the first meeting of this nature ever to be held in the country of Cambodia. It was videotaped for airing on national tele­ vision. Government leaders were so pleased with the conference and its results that they now desire to have a similar one on the na­ tional level. French Polynesia Good relationships with other churches and the government. The church’s education and youth programs receive solid support. But difficulties with Saturday schooling in­ crease. Mainland France’s anti-sect policy is applicable here and echoes in the public school system. Japan During World War II, Seventh-day Adventists in Japan experienced great problems with religious freedom. The doctrines of Adventism—one divine and eternal God expressed in three persons, the second coming of Jesus Christ, and the establish­ ing of a never-ending dominion of the redeemed—irritated the government. At the time, religion and the state were one and the same: The emperor was considered a living god, worthy of wor­

FID ES ET ship, and the nation itself, the people believed, would be forever LIBERTAS prosperous on this planet. On September 20, 1943, the government 2000 arrested Seventh-day Adventist Church workers and jailed 42 pas­

136 tors and lay leaders, some of whom died for their faith. But today, generally speaking, Japan has religious freedom, al­ though Adventists face special issues. A significant concern is the conflict Japan’s educational system presents to observers of the sev­ enth-day Sabbath. The country maintains a six-day school week— Sunday through Saturday. If students expect to graduate, they must attend classes every day. In terms of accommodation, progress is painfully slow. About two years ago, public elementary schools stopped having classes on the second and fourth Saturdays of each month. In the future—perhaps two or three years, public elementary schools will cease all Saturday classes. Not so for secondary level students where the six-day school week prevails. For Seventh-day Adventists and other Sabbatarians, the conflict continues. A problem confronting Seventh-day Adventists in medicine is the government’s fairly rigid policy of scheduling the required an­ nual two-day national board examination on a Saturday and Sunday. It is difficult, of course, for Adventist physicians to take the Saturday half of the test. And the government is reluctant to ar­ range exceptions to the rule given the recent rise of anti-social ac­ tivity. Such discrimination is a major reason for Japan’s chronic shortage of Adventist medical doctors. Is regular accommodation possible? Yes. In the past 20 years or so, the government has occa­ sionally made special arrangements. This year, for example, the government acted favorably following the appeals of a member of the Japanese Diet who is personally acquainted with the president of Tokyo Adventist Hospital, members of the U.S. Congress, and the U.S. Embassy. The International Religious Liberty Association also intervened. The result: Candidates were able to take the na­ tional board examination after sunset Saturday until midnight and then continue on Sunday. Will religious accommodation continue? With changes in the type and length of the examination expected in a year or two, there is no guarantee. Meanwhile, many Christian organizations are openly opposing government moves to legalize the national flag and anthem. According to polls, more than one in three citizens view official recognition of the flag and anthem as symbols of Japanese remilita­ rization. School teachers and administrators question the govern­ ment’s pledge not to make homage to the flag and anthem compulsory. Students and teachers in some schools now boycott graduation ceremonies at which the flag is hoisted and the anthem sung. And Japan’s Asian neighbors consider legalizing the flag and anthem evidence of intent to remilitarize. The National Christian FID ES ET Council in Japan has told the prime minister that legalizing the flag LIBERTAS and anthem is to destroy freedom of thought and belief. 2000

137 As in other French territories, there are po­ We refer here to the Republic ofKorea, often termed Korea Seventh-day Adventists face religious problems in education. In South Korea, however, religious liberty is constitutionally The military draft system in South Korea creates problems for Having said all this, our correspondent remains optimistic: At the university level, Adventist students face serious con­ New Caledonia Adventist workers in companies or factories face similar prob­ 138 South Korea. Because the Democratic People’s Republic ofKorea Seventh-day Adventist who Sabbathfaithfully is observesable to workthe seventh-dayin any government institution. lated middle school. SabbatarianSaturdays. students Teachers are regularly do not absentappreciate on such regular absenteesBecause be­ ofa lack ofunderstanding and even a form ofreligious struggle to keep the Sabbath according to conscience are thrown (or North Korea) remains essentiallyuate in any closed, credible we aredetail unable the statusto eval­ ofreligious freedom there. On government is open on Saturdays,employees closed work on Sundays.on Saturdays, Government then have Sundays off. Thus no services in churches or worship privately within their barracks. young Adventists. By law everymore youngthan mantwo yearsis conscripted ofduty. The for army does not allow for obser­ intojail. More than 1,000 Seventh-day Adventist young people are balance, it appears bleak at best and probably non-existent.guaranteed. But it is not easy to put full benefits into practice. The Saturdays. Adventist church appeals to the appropriate ministries They begin when students enter non-compulsory but strictly regu­ cause regular student absenteeism makes the teachers look bad. drive Adventist students out ofschool rather than keep them in vance ofthe Sabbath. As a result, many Adventist soldiers who flicts. Entrance examinations onof thesome Sabbath.national Manyuniversities medicaling are students classheld or are exam confronted schedules by almost conflict­ every week. And ifandcenses. when Medical board and bar examinations are often scheduled on lems in keeping the Sabbath. Opportunities for employment and hatred and fear ofother potential problems, teachers choosetheir to classrooms. presently in the army, but only 200 or so are able to attend Sabbath “Generally, Korea is a country ofreligious freedom. Seventh-day Adventists do graduate they have problems taking tests for some li­ have not elicited any positive responses. certainly for advancement are thus greatly restricted. Adventists can gather togetherthey anytime choose.” anywhere to worship as IDES ET IBERTAS

U. J 2000 tential problems with Saturday schooling and increasing misunder­ standings from school authorities. Niue The dominant established religion is able to create some opposition to the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Strict Sunday-observance laws prevail. Vanuatu There is constitutional protection of religious free­ dom. No problems. Western Samoa Ethnic traditions and customs lead to persecution of minority religions. Some abuse of human rights has been reported.

CATEGORY 3 China In mainland China, 1999 was not a good year for reli­ gious liberty. Overall, government tightened its control. The people, however, continue to hope that 2000 and the years ahead will bring something better and brighter. They know that reform and openness have reached the point of no return. They hold a stronger sense of security, they call for more mature leadership. Having achieved normal trade status with the United States, China will, of business necessity, be subject to outside audit. Human rights in general and religious freedom in particular will not escape scrutiny. Hong Kong: Were China’s Hong Kong Special Administrative Area independent, it would rank in Category 1. From its founding as a colony of the British Empire to its transfer to China on January 1, 1997, and right up to the present, Hong Kong has en­ joyed full religious freedom. The government provides for and pro­ tects religious liberty. The territory is replete with temples—Buddhist, Hindu, Sikh, and Tao, Muslim mosques, and Christian churches. Many of these major religious groups operate schools and hospitals which not only offer general education and comprehensive health care, but also serve to advance the unique beliefs and doctrines of the sponsoring faith communities. Among these is the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Besides its schools and hospitals, the church is active in social welfare, public evangelism, media ministry, and personal contact—all of which are protected by the government. Taiwan: This island community has always respected different religious beliefs. Buddhism, Christianity—Catholic and Protestant, and Islam all fare well. Taiwanese promote their belief systems by carrying out various religious activities with full freedom. The Seventh-day Adventist Church ministers in the fields of evange­ lism, education, and healthcare. The government does not deny the FI DES ET church its connection to the world organization. LIBERTAS But there are difficulties for working people who want to ob­ 2000

139 serve the seventh-day Sabbath. Taiwan still follows a six-day work week. Government offices, schools, companies, and factories grant Saturdays off only every other week. Two years of military service are required of every young man—a difficult period for non-combatant, Sabbath-keeping Adventist youth. But recently a new law was passed that will allow young men to choose, on religious grounds, a three-year term of community service. Taiwan not only provides religious liberty, but now fosters openness and liberality in its religious policies. If Taiwan were counted a fully independent nation, it would place in Category 2. Mongolia While the government has voted restrictive legis­ lation that could negatively effect Seventh-day Adventists and their mission, the new law has, so far, not been enforced. A possible rea­ son: Mongolia has entered into growing relationships with the gov­ ernments of other nations which are pro-religious freedom.

CATEGORY 4 Indonesia This vast nation of islands is in turmoil. Religious liberty is suffering. For example, on January 30, 2000, an anti-Christian mob of thousands ripped through the streets of Central Java’s capital, Yogyakarta, damaging or destroying a dozen Catholic and Protestant church buildings—including the Adventist Gareja Masehi Advent Hari Ketujah. From our correspondent in Indonesia (January 23, 2000): “A pastor had to evacuate Lombok as the situation was getting too dangerous there. There is one Adventist church in Mataram on the island of Lombok which is in the news. The church was destroyed along with the pastor’s house. The church elder’s house was also burned, and a member’s hotel. Some church members have fled to Bali. Some of the Christian churches in Bali have opened their doors as refuge for those who have fled. Four or five churches in Ambon were destroyed. An Adventist church in [now independent] East Timor has been left empty because all our members fled.” Nauru Flere the Seventh-day Adventist Church encounters major problems. The government requires religious organizations to be officially registered, but rejects the Adventist church’s appli­ cation. Presently three registered churches are able to function: Catholic, Congregational, and the Bom Again Church. Our corre­ spondent, an Adventist minister and church administrator, writes: “Although the Seventh-day Adventist Church has had mem­ FID ES ET bers practicing their faith on the island for over 20 years, the Naum LIBERTAS government has continually refused to allow registration. I was 2000 told that the law set no special criteria for registration—simply

140 apply by letter. I was also advised that the policy of the govern­ ment was to allow no additional churches to register on Nauru, but I could try. I did—and received no reply. In answer to a second written request, I received a letter denying registration. No reason stated. Non-registration means the church cannot • Purchase or lease land. • Meet in a public place. • Conduct public meetings. • Use an interdenominational church building. • Conduct baptisms legally. • Solemnize marriages among its members. • Bury its own deceased members. At present the Adventist group meets in a member’s home. So far the government is not interfering with this practice.” Such draconian restrictions have tragic effects. Our pastoral correspondent recounts a sad story: “A recent experience has caused me to seek redress of reli­ gious intolerance. I arrived in Nauru November 9. After some questioning at the airport, I was granted entry. Adventists who met me reported that a church member had died the previous evening. After conversing about the tragic loss (the man, only 37, left a wife and two young children), I inquired about funeral arrangements. I was asked to conduct a private funeral service in the deceased’s house— and please do it early, before the minister of the Nauru Congregational Church arrived, or we would be in trouble. Earlier that day, a church member had gone to the office of the Nauru gov­ ernment’s first secretary to request that the church be allowed to bury the man. Permission was denied. The member then told the government officer that an Adventist minister and church leader would be arriving, so could he bury the man. That request was also denied. In the end, the Congregational clergyman conducted the service in a most gracious and appropriate manner. About his work we have no complaints. But it is a hurtful experience when the government compels you to turn to a stranger to bury a member of your own church family.” The minister continues: “Our Nauru members have been threatened with jail if they con­ duct baptisms. Our members are denied use of the Nauru Phosphate Company Interdenominational Chapel even though most of them are company employees. Adventist ministers have been denied normal transit entry to the country. I myself am never sure whether or not I

am going to get in as the government will not grant a visa despite my FID ES ET following the required procedures well in advance. The denomina­ LIBERTAS tion cannot send a pastor to care for the church.” 2000

141 According to Reuters (April 21,1999), the Vietnam 142 Seventh-day Adventist Church, which lost its Saigon hospital, still has a mission office that belongs to the church. But its church buildings have been demolishedmarkets and theand properties restaurants. turned The keep governmentinto open five haschurches, allowed all the souththe-scenechurch of Saigon.to correspondent: Reports our“The ownabout southern on-Christianity area is thanmuch the more centralvery relaxed tight.”provinces States where the Vietnamcontrolreligion Newsis still inAgency: Vietnam “A enshrines new decreement religious foron those rights, who but use warns religion government,ofpunish­ to harm thethe state.decree Issued also ligiousbystates the thatorganizations the property once and handedland of tore­ the state belongs to the state.” DES ET BERTAS

IL J 2000 EUROPE, CANADA, UNITED STATES

CATEGORY 1 CATEGORY 3 CATEGORY 4 Czech Republic Albania Armenia Hungary Austria Azerbaijan Iceland Bosnia and Belarus Netherlands Herzegovina Georgia Poland Bulgaria Switzerland Cyprus CATEGORY 5 France Turkmenistan CATEGORY 2 Greece Belgium Kazakhstan Bermuda Kyrgyzstan Canada Luxembourg Croatia Macedonia Denmark Moldova Estonia Russia Finland Tajikistan Germany T urkey Great Britain Uzbekistan Ireland Yugoslavia Latvia Lithuania Norway Portugal Romania Slovenia Spain Sweden Ukraine United States

CATEGORY 1 Netherlands Complete religious freedom. While economic trends are threatening some members, Adventists, working with other churches, are opposing these trends. Poland The Seventh-day Adventist Church enjoys full lib­ erty, based on an act of Parliament (June 30, 1995) which granted all basic rights. The issue of “sects” continues to be of some con­ cern because, at times, the media uses the term pejoratively in de­ scribing the Adventist church. The director of Poland’s office for

new religious movements told Keston News Service (March 27, FID ES ET 2000) that “we have evaluated some registered churches as danger­ LIBERTAS ous sects which threaten civic freedoms. We may now have to 2000

143 Seventh-day Adventists in the workplace face Public schools occasionally require Adventist Religious freedom is assured to every citizen and There are a few scattered Sabbath problems for The Seventh-day Adventist Church in Canada is Religious liberty is adequately protected by law. But Bermuda Canada Denmark Finland The Adventist church’s minister for religious liberty is able to A young man employed in the office a state-owned transporta­ Germany Great Britain A young lady’s vocational retraining as a dairy worker in­ And consider this: Because most cemeteries are owned by the 144 [Catholic] church pressure to do this.” Sabbath accommodations for employees in the workplace. ingThere persons whose businesses are part ofan association or a mall. students to attend school on Saturday. Church leaders have pre­ CATEGORY 2 are also issues in the commercial sector relating to Sabbath-keep­However, the attitude ofofficials is one ofcooperation and willing­ labor union membership and Sabbath accommodation, but these some other forms oflegislation do not harmonize with religious lib­ sented this matter to theremains proper unanswered.authorities, but the question to all faith groups. But there are a few problems in connection with ness to resolve conflicts. withdraw their registration, although we haven’t come under any well known and respected. There have been some problemsare usuallywith resolved without legal action. Where litigation has been in elementary schools face no problems. cluded a compulsory period ofpaid duty. The dairy company she erty principles. Labor laws recognizing Sundayprovide as a dayfor alternatives.of rest do notThis is bad for Sabbatarians. Two examples: tion company was dismissed lowingbecause sunsethe was on unablea few Fridaysto workcase eachtofol­ the year. European Eventually Commission he took hisfor Human Rights. He lost. necessary, the courts have often ruled favorably. provide input in the developmentreligious ofnew freedom. legislation He has providing stressedplying that forto labor,all laws, need including to be ingious thoseharmony liberty. ap­ with the principles ofreli­ Lutheran Church ofFinland, non-Lutherans are often required to employees in general and for students regarding exams. Children was assigned to refused to grantunable her to Sabbath graduate. privileges. She was pay up to ten times the “Lutheran price” to purchase a burial site. IDES ET IBERTAS

Ll J 2000 occasional problems in getting Sabbath off, but these can normally be solved by intervention from the church’s religious liberty ministry. Latvia The government is still working on legislation for church-state relationships. Though not proposing to block the pres­ ence of Latvia’s smaller churches, some of the larger religious bodies strongly suggest that “traditional” churches of a certain age and size be granted more privileges than “new” churches. Romania The most serious religious liberty issue confronting the Seventh-day Adventist Church in 1999 centered on the national capacity examination which was scheduled on a Saturday at the end of the compulsory educational program. Some 650 children were un­ able to sit for the test. A presentation to the Court of Appeals was re­ jected, but the Supreme Court ruled otherwise, directing the Ministry of Education to schedule a new examination time for the Adventist children. With few exceptions, the Supreme Court decision was car­ ried out. But Adventist high school students from ethnic Hungarian families faced a conflict in that the Hungarian language and litera­ ture test was still set on a Saturday. Somehow they had not been included in the Supreme Court decision. The Adventist church in Romania also faces problems related to its evangelistic mission. Local congregations often rent auditori­ ums or theaters for religious programs to which the general public is invited. Following the initial meetings, priests sometimes try to block the series by pressuring the mayors to direct the auditorium or theater managers to cancel their contracts with the church. This happens in the countryside or in small towns where the cultural halls are generally subordinate to municipal authorities. The Romanian Constitution guarantees freedom of religion and conscience. There is no law on religion—yet. The law en­ forced during the Communist regime is considered inappropriate for the present. While the government had discussed a new draft law on religion for more than seven years, it was prevented from submitting it to Parliament until autumn of 1999. Although it was supported by the majority church, the government subsequently withdrew the draft in the face of opposition from minority churches and international organizations. Sweden There are some problems in the education sector at college and university levels. It is becoming more common to schedule tests on Saturdays. Ukraine The Seventh-day Adventist Church has experi­ enced some difficulties in renting halls for evangelistic programs.

While existing national legislation is supposed to prevent violations FID ES ET of religious freedom, the various regions of the do not act in full LIBERTAS harmony with the constitution. Local authorities have attempted to 2000

145 stop evangelistic campaigns. Olga Murga conducted a series of meetings in the Crimea. Orthodox opposition made it very difficult hard to secure a venue. Vladimir Dyman held a campaign in the Chernigov region. Pressured by the Orthodox church, authorities created obstacles. Dyman had to continue elsewhere. Such prob­ lems are exacerbated when the media do not present objectively the equality of all religious organizations before the law. United States The Constitution guarantees religious free­ dom. Civil rights legislation makes it illegal to discriminate against religious convictions. The church supports current efforts to clarify existing legislation, thus eliminating all confusion about employer obligations to arrange religious accommodation in the workplace.

CATEGORY 3 Albania Problems are encountered by Adventist students wanting permission to be absent from school on Saturdays. Adventists who are drafted into the army may face difficulties in honoring their religious convictions. Bulgaria Although the Parliamentary agenda did not list it as business, on February 2,2000, Socialists (i.e., former Communists) proposed the first reading of three different drafts of a new law on religious organizations. The motion carried. Within a half hour all three drafts were moved to the second round. A special commission was set up to merge the three bills into one proposal for the second and final reading. Written by the government, the Socialists, and the VMRO party, the three drafts had been accepted by a Parliamentary legislative committee in November 1999. The committee rejected a fourth draft law, prepared by representatives of various religious minority communities and Bulgaria’s Helsinki Committee. Six days later—on February 8,2000—representatives of nine­ teen religious minorities and other organizations in Bulgaria met in Sofia for a national conference concerning the first reading of the draft laws. The conferees issued an eight-point appeal to the presi­ dent, the prime minister, and the chair of Parliament. Religious communities who signed the appeal included Baptists, members of the Church of God, Congregationalists, Methodists, Mormons, Pentecostals, Roman Catholics, Seventh-day Adventists, and mem­ bers of the United Churches. Other organizations which signed: Bulgaria’s Helsinki Committee, the Institute for the Principle of Justice, the Association for the Protection of Religious Freedom,

FID ES ET the Christian Coalition, and the Tolerance Foundation. LIBERT AS France For several years, the French government has been 2000 the European leader against “sects and cults.” Thankfully, France’s

146 official list did not name the Seventh-day Adventist Church as a sect. But the document has indeed fed prejudice and justified dis­ crimination against all religious minorities. On December 16, 1999, the Senate started the process of revis­ ing a law dating from 1936 by adopting legislation to dissolve groups which “cause trouble to public order.” This bill proposes to treat reli­ gious minorities the same as private militias and terrorist groups. Meanwhile, it is becoming more and more difficult for many Adventist students both in France and in its overseas territories to observe the seventh-day Sabbath (Saturday). According to Pastor Jean-Paul Barquon, secretary of the church’s North France Conference, this is a dramatic change. As early as 1876, Seventh- day Adventists were accorded the various governments’ under­ standing and good will. From 1950 to 1981, the minister of education gave his support. In 1981, a new minister introduced the term “situation à caractère dérogatoire.” A law on compulsory schooling, adopted on December 10, 1998, increased understand­ ing towards Adventist students and teachers. At present, it is clear from the January 2000 report of the Inter-Ministerial Commission Against Sects that France’s list of sects targets all religious minorities. It sets the sectarian population of France’s overseas territories at 20-25% of the general popula­ tion. Former understandings have changed, hostility has become the rule. Strong pressures are put upon parents to force their chil­ dren to go to school on Saturday. The religious character of Sabbath observance is denied. The usual comment is, “If we give you Saturday off, we will have to provide a day off for those who want to go fishing or play soccer.” Sabbath worship is thus com­ pared with secular entertainment. Seventh-day Adventists comprise between 5% and 10% of the population of Guadeloupe and Martinique. Adventist teachers, par­ ents, and students holding sincere religious convictions are accused of having “excessive requirements.” “Some teachers refuse to work on days that their confession claims are holidays.” What day? “Especially Saturday.” “These unacceptable attitudes ” says the re­ port, “should not remain unsanctioned.” Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and all the other international docu­ ments which state that religious freedom is “a fundamental free­ dom” are simply forgotten. Comment on France would not be complete without mention­ ing the position of the Minister of the Interior. In a letter to

International Religious Liberty Association President Bert B. FID ES ET Beach (March 13, 2000), he states that the report of the Inter- LIBERTAS Ministerial Commission is to be understood as information only 2000

147 Over the past few years, the official Seventh- Notwithstanding favorable legislation, Seventh- Most difficulties encountered by Seventh-day Kaliningrad: In January 1999, an Adventist pastor Russia Narjan-Mar: In April 1999, Adventists were prepared to con­ Moldova Macedonia Greece 148 initial meeting because the congregation itselfwas not registered. local hospital. In Kolomna, Orthodox opposition blockedChehov, Olga a pastor who wanted to conduct an evangelistic programday Adventist Church. The pastor’sfuted was request refused. for the article to be re­ duct a family and health program.umentation Notwithstanding authorizing conference the program, doc­ authorities closed it after the secured permission to use theseries cultural ofyouth hall inmeetings. Chemjakhovsk Once the programfor a began, the Orthodox This time the priest’s sons tried to stop the program by beating the Murga’s family program. Local authorities could do nothing.became In the target ofa newspaper article discrediting the Seventh- day Adventists have workplace and school problems. Governmentexample, Adventists in Rybnitsa purchased a house for worship, many times. The churches in Bendery and Kamenka encountered Dr. Bertil Wiklander, president ofthe church’s Trans-Europeanis vigorously moving forward.” Leaders ofthe church in higher than in previous years. ferentEighty books thousand were copiespublished of churchduringseven dif­theofficers last threesaid theyyears.” take Thethis as a sign offreedom. priest stopped the series, forcing the Adventist pastor to pastor’srelocate. wife severely enough to require medical attention at a bureaucracies and mass media create difficulties for the church. Forthen had difficulty in registering theprepared congregation. and sentDocumentsto the registry, were but they were simply returned—the same difficulties. rather than by the government itself. day Adventist Church has had to deal with a small “offshoot”the central office and the main church in Skopje. Though theAdventist courts Church, the decisions have not been implemented.Division: States “The church in Macedonia is leaving troubles behindMacedonia and reported in March 1999 that “baptisms have been Adventists seem to be touched offby Greece’s dominant church movement that hijackedthe name ofthe church and forciblyhave seizedrepeatedly ruled in favor ofthe official Seventh-day and not as a normative document.not a Thelaw ministeruntil it is saysadopted that byderlinesa billthe Nationalis his “profond Assembly. attachement Anddémocratiques” he un­aux principes and républicains to the free exerciseet ofall religions. IDES ET IBERTAS

Il J 2000 Novgorod: Pastor Eduard Siminyuk received an army draft notice. His conference officers appealed first to the military office and then to the city court, both in Valdai. Siminyuk’s request for a clergy deferment was rejected—a denial of a constitutional provi­ sion. During the autumn months of 1999, Siminyuk asked the draft commission to allow him alternative service in accordance with Russia’s Constitution, but the commission ignored his argument that military service contradicts his beliefs. On January 26, 2000, the Novgorod Regional Court of Cassation overturned the lower court decision and ruled that the military office’s draft notice was illegal. This is one of the few decisions in Russian judicial practice in favor of a military draftee who is unable to serve on the basis of religious belief. Since Russian courts do not, as a rule, grant ap­ peals on draft commission actions, the decision by the Novgorod Regional Court of Cassation breaks the vicious circle surrounding conscientious objectors. Siminyuk was represented by Moscow’s Slavic Center for Law and Justice. Volga: Orthodox representatives in Kamenka tried to stop an evangelistic campaign in February. In Volgograd, the newspaper described Seventh-day Adventists as members of a sect who “in­ flict violence, slaughter, and exhausting work without necessary food and sleep.” In the Saratov region, the church has not been able to register congregations for two years. In Pugachev, the assis­ tant chairman of the local government granted permission for an evangelistic campaign, but after the program began, it was stopped and the director of the hall was fired. There are also several cases of church members having to serve in the army without being given a chance for alternative service. Volga-Vyatskaya: In the regional capital, local authorities pro­ hibited the church from renting public buildings for evangelistic programs. In Alekseyevka, in October 1999, local authorities pro­ hibited a campaign. In Kotelnich, representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church and Russian National Unity Party tried to stop a crusade. The mayor of Navashino rejected Adventist evangelism because a local Orthodox priest was negative on the plan. In Nizhny Novgorod, the Adventist church has experienced some dif­ ficulties in renting halls for worship. Uzbekistan The religious sphere throughout Uzbekistan is definitely strained. Authorities at all levels are vindictive. Churches can neither support nor satisfy the spiritual needs of their members for they are unable to provide literature, organize small worship groups, or even meet in homes. Although censorship is constitu­ FID ES ET tionally forbidden, churches cannot bring religious literature into LIBERTAS the country. Heavy customs and other obstacles function as cen- 2000

149 The government has refused to register the The Taliban government has invited Loma In Gyandja, the Seventh-day Adventist con­ Leaders ofthe Adventist, Baptist, and Pentecostal In Tbilisi, the Seventh-day Adventist congregation Georgia Azerbaijan Belarus Afghanistan Turkmenistan “Despite claims that the land was needed to build a new road, 150 CATEGORY 4 ficial registration. CATEGORY 5 Seventh-day Adventist Church.larly Its subjected pastor and to persecution. members are Noregu­ longer can they worship in their sors. Moreover, there is no possibilityChristian ofliterature.printing Thethe governmentBible ionsor as to is whetherrequired ato certain get expert bookchurches opin­ might do upset not have society. legal Registeredstatus.formed All throughtheir activities the government’s must be per­ Council on Religious Affairs.Their actions clearly show thatThe other council religions refused are to not register welcome.in theBukhara Seventh-day in spite Adventistofthe fact Church that the Ministry ofJustice autho­ effort to protect what little freedom they have. There exists an offi­ visitors to the city report that there is no sign ofany new structionroad ofthe church building was the poor condition ofthe suggestion. The bulldozing ofthe Adventist church—which began gregation was able to overcome serious obstacles and secure of­ Linda University to help rebuild the nation’s medical school. own sanctuary because, betweenchurch November building in Ashkhabad13-27, 1999, effortsthe was demolished.to protect legalThe rightscongregation’s Manyand freedoms public andwere legal unsuccessful. organizations tried to influence the erty,govern­ but they too did not succeed.Keston The News following Service report (by Felix froma credible Corley; perspectiveJanuary 21, of2000)the situationprovides in Ashkhabad: Those in charge ofthe council’s Christian sector are Muslims. rized the church’s right to registration. churches organized the Belarus Religious Liberty Associationcial governmentin an declaration tiveofreligious in practical liberty, terms. but it is not opera­ was ableto overcome serious obstacles and secure official registration. being constructed. The second reason authorities cited forchurch the de­ building itself, but visitorstion and to thethose church who havebefore viewed its destruc­ videos ofthe building refute this ment with regard to violations ofhuman rights and religious lib­ IDES ET IBERTAS

li. J 2000 November 13 and took two weeks to complete—has been widely regarded as the defining moment of Turkmenistan’s suppression of its religious minorities. “During a Helsinki Commission [Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe] delegation visit to the site where the church had stood, Karen Lord stated, ‘It is evident from visiting the site that the authorities have no immediate plans to construct a road. The building remains as a pile of rubble with no indication that work continues on the site. No other buildings have been de­ stroyed save the church and a home behind the church. The Adventist church, a neighboring school, and 17 houses surrounding the site all received notice from city planners, but no others have been demolished to date.’ “Lord added that after initially saying the church had to be de­ molished to make way for a new road, the authorities declared the building had to be condemned because it was structurally unsound, ‘from the information obtained by the Helsinki Commission staff, both of these reasons appear to be fallacious. There is a major road a few blocks away which serves as a primary artery for traffic in the city. No new road appears to be needed through a quiet resi­ dential area. The building itself was solidly constructed. The time it took to demolish it is testimony to that.’ “Other visitors to the site since the demolition have also con­ firmed to Keston Institute that the former building remains a pile of rubble and that no construction work on a new road has begun. The architect denied that the church had been singled out for demolition. He claimed the demolition had taken place in accordance with the ‘general plan for the city.’ The first the church’s pastor had learned of the impending demolition had been a letter dated November 11 ordering the Adventists to vacate the building ahead of the immi­ nent demolition. The deputy chairman for religious affairs there de­ clared that the demolition of the Adventist church and two Hare Krishna temples ‘was all done in accordance with the law.’ “Pastor f edotov told the OSCE delegation that while conduct­ ing the Saturday evening service on November 13, approximately five workers and 25 security officers arrived to begin the demoli­ tion. None would identify themselves and no papers were produced indicating governmental permission. The police blocked all roads, gardens, and walkways out of the area. Ten people were actually in the church as the destruction began. The British and American am­ bassadors attempted to visit the site but were prevented from enter­

ing the area. Representatives from the OSCE’s center in Fl DES ET Ashkhabad were also notified of the situation and they attempted to LIBERTAS visit the area. 2000

151 “The Adventist church gathered signatures to petition President “Construction ofthe Adventist church in Ashkhabad was “The demolition came after months ofharassment and threats to “Also in October, some 15 police officers raided a service at “The day the destruction began, Fedotov received a notice “According to Karen Lord, when the OSCE representatives in­ 152 Religious Affairs. The Council suggestedto Fedotovservices: that he end ‘Ifyou all do not stop your services, then there will structionbe recon­ in the city.’ Fedotov indicated that he was gathering docu­ needed to complete the application. In October, a month later, Fedotov no reply. They also sent a letter toplot the ofmayorland and requesting compensation another for the destroyed building. They construction project, but rather statesdown that because the building the church was tomdid not have the properpermits. begun in 1992 with permission from President Niyazov and was meeting and forcing Fedotov thento signsummoned a statement.to theThe Administrative pastor was Court and fined followingdocument with the final decisioneven for taken the place.fine before the hearing had other pastors hadbeen invited to meet officials ofthe Council for ments to apply for re-registration and asked what documents were was told that his request had been denied, even before he had applied. from the procurator declaring, ‘Your appeal to the procuratorReligion has Law ofTurkmenistan.’ ing, the workers expressed deep concern because they believedwas well known on the streetsand that there this waschurch some had concern been destroyed thatdesecrated, because negative a holy place things had wouldOther been befallsources the told Turkmen Keston people.’thatdown when the a buildingcrane being broke used unexpectedly, to thatknock he was thenot operatorprepared saidto continuein fear with the demolition and left Niyazov to stop the destruction ofthe church, but they were given have not had an official answer to knowsthis request, that therealthough is a negativeFedotov response to sign. whichThis response, the mayor Fedotov is reluctant maintains, does not discuss any city completed in 1996.” the Adventist church, ordering parishioners to cease the illegal what he described as a ‘sham’ trial. Fedotov reportedly saw the the unregistered community. In September 1999, Pastor Fedotov and been considered. The questions in your appeal are regulated by the terviewed the workers who were engaged in destroying thethey build­ were destroying ‘a house ofGod.’ Said Lord: ‘Apparently it the site. The following day thenew authorities operator tofound continue a new the crane work. and a IDES ET IBERTAS

Ll J 2000 Meanwhile, despite meeting all legal requirements, registration of a local Bible society has been refused by the government of Turkmenistan. The application was a collaborative effort by members of the Baptist, Greater Grace, Pentecostal, and Seventh-day Adventist churches. Turkmenistan is the only country of the former Soviet Union that does not have an officially recognized Bible society.

FID ES ET LIBERTAS 2000

153 Mexico CATEGORY 3 CATEGORY 2 Argentina Antigua and Barbuda Aruba Barbados Brazil Bahamas Bolivia Cayman Chile Colombia Dominica Ecuador French Guyana Haiti El Salvador Grenada Guadeloupe Guyana Martinique Paraguay Jamaica Montserrat Netherlands Antilles Panama Peru St. Kitts-Nevis St. Lucia Nicaragua Puerto Rico St. Maarten St. Vincent Suriname Uruguay Trinidad and Tobago U. S. Virgin Islands Venezuela Ideal situation. The Adventist church’s rela­ LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN St. Eustatius Belize CATEGORY 1 Costa Rica Dominican Republic Honduras St. Eustatius Guatemala 154 CATEGORY 1 tionship with the community is excellent. IDES ET IBERTAS

Il J 2000 CATEGORY 2 Antigua and Barbuda Problems are being reduced. The gov­ ernor general, a Seventh-day Adventist, has been extremely helpful. Barbados The private sector is a problem, but there has been excellent intervention. New laws such as the Shoppes Bill have been enacted. Colombia According to Statutory Law 133 approved by the Colombian Parliament, religious liberty is protected. Article 6 opens the door for Seventh-day Adventists to keep the Sabbath (Saturday) free of regular work, school attendance, or military ser­ vice by agreement of the parties involved. This law benefits several levels of life. Education: The national test for admission to public and private universities is now available to Adventist students on Saturday night. Universities respect the right of Adventist students not to take tests on the Sabbath. Military: Adventist students are no longer forced to perform military duty on the Sabbath. Adventist chaplains are accepted in public schools, hospitals, and the mili­ tary. Adventist church weddings: The process is nearly complete to accept an Adventist wedding certificate as legal. Colombia’s only difficulty for Adventists: The church’s situation in areas controlled by armed guerillas. Dominica General problems. The majority Roman Catholic Church dominates but inter-church relations are improving. El Salvador Sabbath problems. Visits have been made to the government leaders and ministries. Grenada Police service and the private sector have brought some problems, but there is excellent intervention by church representatives. Guyana University security service presents some prob­ lems, but the church is initiating dialogue with the new govern­ ment and has an excellent relationship with tertiary institutions. Adventist pastors are allowed to preach in the prisons. Jamaica Successful intervention brought to solve a few problems in some public schools. Nicaragua There are some problems with employment. A national chapter of the International Religious Liberty Association is being organized. Panama There are some Sabbath problems in public schools. Puerto Rico There are some problems. Letters sent to the organizations involved. Some cases are taken to court. St. Kitts-Nevis There have been few complaints. Effective dialogue with authorities in government. FID ES ET St. Lucia Difficulties in the private sector on the matter of LIBERTAS Sabbath accommodation. Good relations with the government. 2000

155 Public service, school examinations, Some problems in the private sector. Private sector problems, but the church has a The general Sabbath issue is a problem, partic­ A few Sabbath problems in public schools, mili­ Problems were reported in North Chiapas where St. Maarten St. Vincent Trinidad and Tobago U.S. Virgin Islands Venezuela Mexico 156 According to the census, Adventists may constitute up to pecent17 of high profile and works diligently in response to social issues. the population. The minister oftourism is a Seventh-dayAdventist. in the community. An ANN dispatch on March 5, 2000, reportedSeventh-day Adventist families were among 72 Protestant families ularly in the public service andter ofsecurityhealth areas.is a Seventh-dayThe nation’s Adventistminis­ physician. and private enterprise are sometimesgeneral understandsproblematic. theThe situation. attorneyequal Parliament opportunities will billconsider which anincludes a day-of-worship clause. CATEGORY 3 Espinosa: “Fourteen homes Protestantswere demolished fled to bythe the hills mob for asrefuge.” Other attacks against evan­ Adventists have been forced marchestojoin a paramilitaryagainst the government. group in protest They endure religious onintolerance anti-Protestant persecution in several Chiapas villages. “Twelve tary service, and employment.the A presidentchurch representative ofthe Constituent interviewed Assembly. apparently expelled from themunity’s village ofRomanFleur deCatholic Agala bymajority.” the com­ ANN quoted Pastor Isaias gelicals were reported duringlages. March Since and April 1994, ongoing 1999 in severalconflict betweenvil­ different Christian families to build a new church in the village on land donated by a groups in the region ofPlan Adventistde Ayala hasfamilies forced to at leaveleast thecurrent20 area. disputeTen homes results were from burned. plans byThe the five remaining Adventistchurch member. The Generalhas Assembly, refused toa allowlocal governingthe buildinging body,to toevict be constructed the Adventists and is fromthreaten­ the village. In search ofsolutions, dialogues have been initiatedtary with group, the government,and the community. the paramili­ IDES ET IBERTAS

1L J 2000 NEAR EAST AND NORTH AFRICA

CATEGORY 2 CATEGORY 4 CATEGORY 5 Iraq Bahrain Afghanistan Jordan Kuwait Iran Lebanon Libya CATEGORY 3 Morocco Saudi Arabia Egypt Oman Syria Israel Pakistan Tunisia Qatar Yemen United Arab Emirates

CATEGORY 2 Jordan While Seventh-day Adventists welcomed Jordan’s recent move toward a Friday-Saturday weekend, they are sensitive that the new arrangement may present problems for some who worship on Sunday.

CATEGORY 3 Egypt The Seventh-day Adventist Church is one of only a handful of Christian faith groups officially recognized by the gov­ ernment which, of course, then keeps a close eye on the church’s activities. Adventists are now experiencing problems in the area of marriage because the large and highly influential Coptic Church seeks the imposition of restrictions on non-Copts. Israel Though opportunities for public evangelism are lim­ ited, Adventists have freedom to worship and practice their faith. In the West Bank, some difficulties are encountered concerning Sabbath privileges because the Palestinian authorities tend to see observance of the seventh day of the week as a Jewish thing.

CATEGORY 4 Lebanon Although in many ways Lebanon offers more reli­ gious liberty than any other country in the region, the government has put restrictions on the number of churches it will recognize. The Seventh-day Adventist Church is recognized only as a unit under the umbrella of an organization for evangelical churches. Pakistan Major problems are encountered in acquiring visas for expatriate church workers. Christians are probably more restricted in Pakistan than in Sudan. Proselytism among Muslims is dangerous. Shari’a law is sometimes applied. In July of 2000

Pakistan declared itself to be an Islamic state. Meanwhile, the FID ES ET Adventist church continues to exist as a Christian organization. It LIBERTAS owns property, builds churches, and applies for and receives some 2000

157 According to religious liberty activist One positive note in an otherwise oppressive Saudi Arabia Afghanistan 158 its territory the public practice ofany religion except Islam. However, ifthey try to do this they are arrested, imprisoned,Christians, and and all other non-Muslims from having their own CATEGORY 5 Gianfranco Rossi (quoted by Arabiathe Adventist is the onlyNews country Network), in the “Saudiworld that formally prohibitsAmong on the six million immigrantnot Muslims. workers, thereThey wouldare many like whoto profess are their faith freely. expelled from the country. Saudi authorities prohibit Jews,places ofworship and even from meeting in private.” environment, the Taliban government has invited Loma Linda missionary visas. The churchmajor operates hospital. schools, a seminary, and a University to help rebuild the nation’s medical school. IDES ET IBERTAS

IL J 2000 SOUTHERN ASIA

CATEGORY 3 CATEGORY 4 CATEGORY 5 India Nepal Bhutan Sri Lanka Maldives

CATEGORY 3 India India is a democratic, secular republic. The constitu­ tion guarantees religious freedom as a fundamental right. Article 25 of the Indian Constitution provides to all people freedom of conscience and the right to profess, practice, and propagate any re­ ligion subject to the prescribed limitation of public order, morality, and health. Moreover, the government must not support any one particular religion. But due to the rise of Hindu fundamentalism, India is facing many difficulties. The present government is dominated by a Hindu religious party. Though the state governments have made public pronouncements in support of secularism, some have never­ theless passed legislation to prevent religious conversions. Additionally, India’s six-day work week creates Sabbath problems in public schools and workplaces in many places. In spite of all the difficulties, we are able to carry on evangelistic work in many parts of the nation. The government has decided to form a committee to review the constitution. This has raised questions in the minds of many people. However, the government has given assurances that such basic tenets as democracy, republicanism, and secularism will not be touched. Still, secularists have expressed their apprehension about a hidden agenda in the whole process of constitutional review. Religious conversions have been prohibited. In January 1999, Australian missionary Graham Staines and his two sons were burned to death. The man alleged to be behind this crime has been arrested. However, the state of Orissa, where the murders took place, passed an order in November 1999 prohibiting conversions without prior permission from the local police and the district mag­ istrate. This order means that anyone wishing to convert to any other religion must undergo police inquiry to explain his or her reasons. The police report is then drawn up, supplemented by in­ formation from family members and neighbors, and then passed on to the district magistrate who is authorized to grant or deny permis­ sion. The law obviously targeted Christianity. Little wonder that it

has created widespread dismay among India’s Christian commu­ FID ES ET nity. The bad situation is likely to deteriorate further if, as ex­ LIBERTAS pected, Orissa brings to power a new legislative assembly 2000

159 The decades-long ethnic struggle between the Places ofworship have been limited. In the state ofUttar Meanwhile, the Gujarat state government lifted a ban on its The government ofIndia approved New Delhi as the venue of Sri Lanka 160 Christians fearthis could lead to denial ofpermission to hold, controlled by a Hindu-influenced political party. Pradesh, India’s most populous, legislators on January 4 passed a legally speaking, any meetings anywhere in the state. However, at Swayam Sevak Sangh. Not only Christian organizations but also bill restricting the construction and use ofplaces ofworship. been ratified by the governor. employees being members ofthe Hindu nationalist Rashtriyasecular political parties have objected. However, India’s prime the time our correspondent prepared this report, the bill had not minister and home minister Thehave bothGujaratjustified assembly Gujarat’s is also action.of expectedreligion tobill discuss this year. its newIt would freedom forbid conversion ofa leadingperson byto a conversion could be fined and imprisoned for Christiansup to working with tribalconversion and marginal by “enticement”people simply or “allurement”because or by “fraudulent use offorce, fraud, or enticement. Anyone involved in activitythree years. This bill, ifand when it becomes effective, will haunt means” can be interpreted incate many that ways. Christianity Such circumstances in Indiathe is samegoing indi­ throughtime, there difficult is overwhelming times.have At a great evidence thirst tothat know a lot about ofpeople Jesus. the International Religious Libertyon Association’sReligious Freedom, World conductedConference November 16-18, 1999. Most re­ ligions were represented. The Seventh-dayported it in Adventistfull. Leaders Church from thesup­opposition governingjoined coalition representatives and the gions of India’s—andin sharing their the understandingworld’s—reli­ ofreligious freedom. ComingConference was understood and perceived as an effort to build Aspirations ofsome Tamils for an autonomous homeland in the Sinhala-speaking Sinhalese are Buddhists; the Tamil-speaking bridges between religions and to create a climate ofpeace. majority Sinhalese and minority Tamils continues. The basicnorthern issue: section ofthis beautifulBut theisland, conflict once has known clear linguisticas Ceylon. and religious overtones.Tamils The are, in the main, Hindu.street English signs is in theColombo, bridge forlanguage; example, are tri-lingual. Christians in both groups feel trapped. TheyofJesus want toChrist be faithful and, at tothe the same teachings time, loyal to their ethnic commu­ just a few days afterthe visit ofPope Jean Paul II, the IRLA World IDES ET IBERTAS

IL J 2000 nities. The M. Anthony Alexander story is illustrative. A Seventh-day Adventist minister and teacher—and a Tamil, Alexander was arrested by the national police in March 1998. The charges: Supporting the anti-government Tamil Tiger movement. Though subjected to exquisite physical torture, he resisted signing a false confession—until the police warned him that they would get his wife and five children if he continued to hold out. Imprisoned without trial—technically legal under Sri Lanka’s emergency laws—Alexander did not get a first hearing in court until December 1999. And that came about because the Adventist church focused global attention on his case. The charges having been divided, Alexander was tried in separate courts before differ­ ent judges, one of whom became so accustomed to seeing people from Bermuda, Indonesia, the Philippines, and the United States in his courtroom that when they were not present he was constrained to ask: “Where are all the international people?” As the trials con­ tinued through the winter and spring of 2000, the government’s case unraveled. The coerced “confession” was ruled inadmissable. Physical evidence was shown to be utterly incredible. Ruling on a defense motion, the presiding judge on May 15 declared Pastor Alexander innocent of all charges and ordered his immediate re­ lease from prison. A footnote: Over the long months behind bars, Alexander’s Sinhalese prison wardens and guards came to appreciate the Tamil minister whose only agenda was the peace of God in Sri Lanka and good will among the nation’s peoples. In prison, Pastor Alexander daily shared, in word and deed, the love of Christ with other Tamil prisoners—young fellows, most of them, and considered by the government guilty of terrorism simply because they are Tamils. Anthony Alexander’s prison ministry was, in fact, so meaningful that the leadership of the revolutionary movement pleaded: “Please stop your preaching. We know that when you have converted all our young men to Christianity, they won’t fight with us anymore.” Another footnote—this from The Washington Post (June 8, 2000): “Colombo, Sri Lanka, June 7—A suicide bomb blast near Colombo shattered Sri Lanka’s first War Heroes Day, killing a cabinet minister and 20 other people. There was no claim of re­ sponsibility for the bombing, but it was similar to previous attacks by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, a group that has been fighting the Sri Lankan military for 17 years to create a separate homeland for minority Tamils in northern and eastern Sri Lanka.

The rebels have a suicide unit, the Black Tigers, that has targeted FID ES ET government officials and politicians. After the bombing, crowds of LIBERTAS angry people began attacking the homes of Tamils, a government 2000

161 2000

rIBERTAS ET tiIDES expatriate workers must worship in private. in as worship Maldives must the entered workers have who expatriate nations other from Christians information government The area. the from journalists barred the Himalayas: a few churches, a school, and an internationally- internationally- an and school, a churches, few a Himalayas: the All churches are banned. Islam is the dominant religion. Those Those religion. dominant the is Islam banned. are churches All nation. the in anywhere church a build cannot they Adventist but faith, Seventh-day the adopted recently have few a people Bhutanese Nonetheless, church. Adventist the including all churches on ban Christian general a is There monarch. young a by ruled kingdom 5 CATEGORY and can Christians Nepalese But worship. of­ do property. serious of (a ownership conversion and restric­ mission: fense) the church’s Among the active. inhibit very that is tions Development International, Adventist Agency the Relief and International, ADRA hospital. known 4 CATEGORY from communities all protect ‘to backlash.’” any taken been had steps a that at added calm stay ‘to public the to appealing statement a issued and agency suburbs adjacent two and curfew a imposed neighborhood insurgency, Ratmalana the Tamil on emer­ the with assumed deal to already has powers which gency government, The said. official Seventh-day Adventist Church has a presence in this nation high in in high nation this in presence a has Church Adventist Seventh-day It high.’ running are emotions when this as such time sensitive 162 Maldives Maldives Nepal Bhutan Bhutan Nepal has declared itself a Hindu kingdom. But the the But kingdom. Hindu a itself declared has Nepal Religious freedom does not exist in Bhutan, a Hindu Hindu a Bhutan, in exist not does freedom Religious There is no religious freedom in the Maldives. the in freedom religious no is There CONCLUSION The Seventh-day Adventist Church’s Religious Freedom World Report 2000 is a modest contribution to the collection of similar documents on religious intolerance currently issued by var­ ious governments and non-governmental organizations. We strive to fill a complementary role. This report’s focus on the experience of Seventh-day Adventists should not be seen as a sign of denomi­ national exclusiveness. It was the best way to channel the flow of information we receive and to report on some unique aspects of the global condition of religious freedom. We work diligently with the best we have in the current circumstances. Certainly we are con­ cerned about all violations of religious freedom against all reli­ gions and beliefs. Though this report is seriously—even severely— edited, the feeling persists that much work still needs to be done and improve­ ments made. Informational input remains unequal in detail and accu­ racy. We simply hope this report will serve as a resource document for the United Nations as well as other agencies, institutions, and countries. May it open doors to dialogue and better understanding. Religious freedom is always in the process of being given or denied, of being built up or tom down. The Seventh-day Adventist Church is fully committed to this principle: Religious freedom is a fundamental freedom. The church is also committed to this mis­ sion: To defend, protect, and promote religious liberty for all peo­ ple everywhere.

FID ES ET LIBERTAS 2000

163 The First Word and the Last

William Wordsworth (United Kingdom; 1770-1850) describes the person of faith and defines faith itself: One in whom persuasion and belief Had ripened into faith, and faith become A passionate intuition. (The Excursion, Book IV.) For such a one, witness to that “passionate intuition” called faith flows as naturally-and positively-as breathing in and breath­ ing out. Witness to a whole and healthy faith does not resort to negative proselytism resulting in persecution. Writes Alfred Tennyson (United Kingdom; 1809-1892): To persecute Makes a faith hated, and is furthermore No perfect witness of a perfect faith In him who persecutes. (Queen Mary, Act III, Scene 4.)

* For most readers of Fides et Libertas, Miguel de Cervantes (Spain; 1547-1616) states the obvious: Liberty ... is one of the most valuable blessings that Heaven has bestowed upon mankind. (Don Quixote, Part II, Chapter 58.) But it’s an obvious worth stating. And restating. Flere’s Daniel Webster (United States; 1782-1852): God grants liberty only to those who love it, and are always ready to guard and defend it. (From a speech given June 3, 1834, and pub­ lished in Webster’s Works, Volume IV.) To guard and defend religious liberty: This is the mission of the International Religious Liberty Association. Our mission must succeed. We will fail only if falters our faith in The God who gave us life, [who] gave us liberty at the same time. (Thomas Jefferson [United States; 1743-1826]: Summary View o f the Rights o f British America.) We will fail if we fear to confront the mother of fears: the fear of freedom itself. One should never put on one’s best trousers to go out in to fight for freedom. (Henrik Ibsen [Norway; 1828-1906]: The Enemy o f the People.) Indeed, They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. (In a response from the Assembly of Pennsylvania to the Governor, November 1755, and subse­ quently appearing in Benjamin Franklin [United States; 1706-1790]: Historical Review o f Pennsylvania.) * Right here I’ll pause to express gratitude for the privilege of Fl DES ET LIBERTAS having been the first editor of Fides et Libertas and to welcome 2000 with enthusiasm my successor, Jonathan Gallagher. F&L is in

164 good hands-his and yours. * Alfred Austin (United Kingdom; 1835-1913) asks if life is worth living-and then answers his own question: . . . Yes, so long As there is wrong to right.

So long as faith with freedom reigns And loyal hope survives, And gracious charity remains To leaven lowly lives; While there is one untrodden tract For intellect or will, And men are free to think and act, Life is worth living still. Faith and freedom. Fid.es et libertas. The first word. And the last. —Richard Lee Fenn

FID ES ET LIBERTAS 2000

165